What is the purpose of computers?

[-1-]

The computer would never say it’s a computer, let alone it’s an imprecise computer.

I don't see how that can be true. A computer can say anything you program it to say.

[-1-]

Do you mean to say that you subscribe to the computational theory of mind? In which subjective mental states, qualia, consciousness itself, are attributed to the working of a computation in the sense of Turing 1936? That would be the usual interpretation of the word calculation. I'm just asking if you used the word casually or if you intended the metaphysical consequences of assuming the mind is a computation?

I can't say for sure. Computation seems to be at least part of it, but it famously doesn't explain a sense of being.

It does seem that complexity and what we think of as consciousness are intrinsically connected, but I suspect that a sense of being is fundamentally the same no matter how many brain cells you have. Humans have an advantage because we have a much better sense of the passage of time than other beasties. However, that sense of being an individual just trying to deal with what comes its way strikes me as universal. In my daily interactions with garden animals, it seems that many, such as lizards and spiders, often respond pretty well how a human would if in their situation with the same sensory limits.

I did not ask the quoted question "computational theory of mind" and my answer (if asked) would have been the same or similar to yours.

I would only add that while complexity is one key, the other is the usefulness of it. Plants are complex, but we think (some of us) that they lack a sense of self (others of us think they have a sense of self). So functionality of sense of self is a prerequisite, it seems, to have a sense of self, other than mere complexity.

On the other hand, humans can't sense the sense of self of others, so a rock may have a sense of self or a leg or wardrobe chest. Who knows. So because we are incapable of sensing or testing for senses of self in objects and beings outside of ourselves, it may be true that
1. We, alone, individually, are the only one having a sense of self (one extreme)
2. Things similar to us in need of sense of self and in complexity have a sense of self (safe bet)
3. Everything has a sense of self, even inanimate objects (other extreme)

All three are possible, and no probability can be attached to any of them, other than which is based on a anthropo-centric world view.

The only SURE thing I can say about sense of self is that I have one, I need it for survival, and I am (supposedly) complex enough to have one.

[Impenitent]

The computer would never say it’s a computer, let alone it’s an imprecise computer.

I don't see how that can be true. A computer can say anything you program it to say.

but, but global warming ... and you have to be a communist slave to save the planet, our computer models are the new gospel and truth...

I see dead people.

-Imp

[-1-]

The computer would never say it’s a computer, let alone it’s an imprecise computer.

I don't see how that can be true. A computer can say anything you program it to say.

but, but global warming ... and you have to be a communist slave to save the planet, our computer models are the new gospel and truth...

I see dead people.

-Imp

Hehe. Not all humans are programmable. I mean, we are all programmable... but some of us, in the very midst of us, are the writers of those programs that we feed to humans.

The programs that humans are programmed with, are certainly not written by god or by mice. They are written by humans, inspired by their sense of economic, social, and physical environs.

[-1-]

I see a sea of dead people.
Once food of love,
Now pool of blood.
Fed by programs,
Killed by pogroms.
Ethnic cleansing,
Carpet bombing.
Carpe diem
Morde ti emm.


-Imp and -1-

[Dontaskme]

Hehe. Not all humans are programmable. I mean, we are all programmable... but some of us, in the very midst of us, are the writers of those programs that we feed to humans.

The programs that humans are programmed with, are certainly not written by god or by mice. They are written by humans, inspired by their sense of economic, social, and physical environs.

Oh ffs..humans wrote the human programme via dead things...?

That would be like cinderella knowing who her biological father is.

.

[Dontaskme]

The only SURE thing I can say about sense of self is that I have one, I need it for survival, and I am (supposedly) complex enough to have one.

Nothing is alive or dead.

All knowledge is a concept known by nothingness, not-knowing.

Life is a fiction for no one.

Nothing is here/there ..except what 'thought' puts here/there.

A thought is nothing.

Nothing is real.

A divine paradox.

[Logik]

Hehe. Not all humans are programmable. I mean, we are all programmable... but some of us, in the very midst of us, are the writers of those programs that we feed to humans.

The programs that humans are programmed with, are certainly not written by god or by mice. They are written by humans, inspired by their sense of economic, social, and physical environs.

Fact 1. The is-ought gap cannot be conquered with logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem )
Fact 2. There is an argument somewhere, which convinced somebody to change their mind about something.

This is a paradox. If logic/reason cannot conquer the is-ought gap then logic/reason should not be able to convince you to change your mind.

Non-programmable means "cannot be convinced to change mind".

On the big/strategic stuff I am not programmable (anymore). I know what I want.
I am programmable on minor details/tactical stuff - how to get closer to what I want with the tools/resources at my disposal.

[-1-]

This is a paradox. If logic/reason cannot conquer the is-ought gap then logic/reason should not be able to convince you to change your mind.

It is only a paradox if you believe that logic/reason is the only thing capable of action.

There are other tools of programming, not only logic/ reason. I mean, humans-programming.

[Logik]

It is only a paradox if you believe that logic/reason is the only thing capable of action.

There are other tools of programming, not only logic/ reason. I mean, humans-programming.

Yes. You mean humans-programming. So do I. Humans are trivial to manipulate.
Logos, pathos and ethos are the tools of persuasion.

On this platform all three are communicated using words (logos/logic).

Now if you stop nitpicking on the instruments and focus on the outcome. My argument still stands.

The is-ought gap cannot be crossed with logic/facts/reason. And yet people are persuaded.

IF you have ever been persuaded you were (re?)programmed.

[Dontaskme]

Technology we (no one) invents is an example of our own capacity a manifestation of abilities we already possess. So if one thinks of phones, especially cell phones, they represent the ability to communicate with each other without being there.

Quantum physics basically demonstrates that there is no 'here' and 'there', we already have the ability we're just hiding it from ourselves.

Doing is done, no doer thereof.

.