Are Humans 'Programmable'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My original statement was,
ALL human beings are 'programmed' with the 'program' of the 'potential to kill' [& other potentials as well].

Psycho disagreed, i.e. "It is not possible to program humans." Note he did not refer to "program" with " ".

Can you explain why rewiring the brain is not programming given that 'human programming' is an accepted term within neuroscience and neuro-psychology.
Show me some references to some opposing views where rewiring of the brain as in human programming is not programming.

Whoever proposes the existence of something carries the responsibility of providing the evidence that justifies his assertion.
It is not possible to program humans.
The phrase is used metaphorically.
But it is completely indifferent to me that you understand that it is possible.

Off point, I ask you to google re
"why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'."

If you found sites that claim that it is possible to program humans, my clarification is still valid.

I understand the term 'programming' and 'program' is often used with reference to computers.
This is why when I used the term 'program' in relation to human beings, it is always enclosed with " ".

Whilst computers are machines & physical and humans are biological & organic entities, I believe the term 'programable' is valid for humans in terms of the end results, i.e.
outputs from inputs in accordance to the a set of conditions, i.e.
if X, then Y, else Z.
e.g. if hungry, then eat, if not, no need to eat.

Computer codes are exactly like the above, if X, then Y, else Z.

I believe by now, the term 'humans are "programmable" ' is easily understood by most and at present used commonly as a norm [just google to verify this claim], thus there is no need to insist that is metaphorical.

When the phrase 'humans are programmable' is accepted, that will enable the potential for humans to be programmed for good [preventive measure instituted to prevent evil].
This potential is realizable given the advancements of the Human Connectome Project, i.e. the neural mapping of the full brain.

When we don't use the term "programmable" for humans, then the majority will be indifferent to it and its potential to be programmed for greater goods.

Note there is no absolute meanings to a word which etymologically changes in alignment with popular usage in time.

So, Are Humans 'Programmable'?
Your views?

[Skepdick]

Persuasion is programming.

To ask "are humans programmable" is to ask "are humans persuadable?"

[psycho]

My original statement was,
ALL human beings are 'programmed' with the 'program' of the 'potential to kill' [& other potentials as well].

Psycho disagreed, i.e. "It is not possible to program humans." Note he did not refer to "program" with " ".

Can you explain why rewiring the brain is not programming given that 'human programming' is an accepted term within neuroscience and neuro-psychology.
Show me some references to some opposing views where rewiring of the brain as in human programming is not programming.

Whoever proposes the existence of something carries the responsibility of providing the evidence that justifies his assertion.
It is not possible to program humans.
The phrase is used metaphorically.
But it is completely indifferent to me that you understand that it is possible.

Off point, I ask you to google re
"why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'."

If you found sites that claim that it is possible to program humans, my clarification is still valid.

I understand the term 'programming' and 'program' is often used with reference to computers.
This is why when I used the term 'program' in relation to human beings, it is always enclosed with " ".

Whilst computers are machines & physical and humans are biological & organic entities, I believe the term 'programable' is valid for humans in terms of the end results, i.e.
outputs from inputs in accordance to the a set of conditions, i.e.
if X, then Y, else Z.
e.g. if hungry, then eat, if not, no need to eat.

Computer codes are exactly like the above, if X, then Y, else Z.

I believe by now, the term 'humans are "programmable" ' is easily understood by most and at present used commonly as a norm [just google to verify this claim], thus there is no need to insist that is metaphorical.

When the phrase 'humans are programmable' is accepted, that will enable the potential for humans to be programmed for good [preventive measure instituted to prevent evil].
This potential is realizable given the advancements of the Human Connectome Project, i.e. the neural mapping of the full brain.

When we don't use the term "programmable" for humans, then the majority will be indifferent to it and its potential to be programmed for greater goods.

Note there is no absolute meanings to a word which etymologically changes in alignment with popular usage in time.

So, Are Humans 'Programmable'?
Your views?

That something contains conditionals does not mean that it is programmed

A program is a set of directives that seeks a certain objective.

No. It is not possible to input data to a human being and then extract that processed data. And that is not programming. That would be using a human to process data.

[bahman]

My original statement was,
ALL human beings are 'programmed' with the 'program' of the 'potential to kill' [& other potentials as well].

Psycho disagreed, i.e. "It is not possible to program humans." Note he did not refer to "program" with " ".

Can you explain why rewiring the brain is not programming given that 'human programming' is an accepted term within neuroscience and neuro-psychology.
Show me some references to some opposing views where rewiring of the brain as in human programming is not programming.

Whoever proposes the existence of something carries the responsibility of providing the evidence that justifies his assertion.
It is not possible to program humans.
The phrase is used metaphorically.
But it is completely indifferent to me that you understand that it is possible.

Off point, I ask you to google re
"why what is commonly term "human-programming" is not a case of 'programming'."

If you found sites that claim that it is possible to program humans, my clarification is still valid.

I understand the term 'programming' and 'program' is often used with reference to computers.
This is why when I used the term 'program' in relation to human beings, it is always enclosed with " ".

Whilst computers are machines & physical and humans are biological & organic entities, I believe the term 'programable' is valid for humans in terms of the end results, i.e.
outputs from inputs in accordance to the a set of conditions, i.e.
if X, then Y, else Z.
e.g. if hungry, then eat, if not, no need to eat.

Computer codes are exactly like the above, if X, then Y, else Z.

I believe by now, the term 'humans are "programmable" ' is easily understood by most and at present used commonly as a norm [just google to verify this claim], thus there is no need to insist that is metaphorical.

When the phrase 'humans are programmable' is accepted, that will enable the potential for humans to be programmed for good [preventive measure instituted to prevent evil].
This potential is realizable given the advancements of the Human Connectome Project, i.e. the neural mapping of the full brain.

When we don't use the term "programmable" for humans, then the majority will be indifferent to it and its potential to be programmed for greater goods.

Note there is no absolute meanings to a word which etymologically changes in alignment with popular usage in time.

So, Are Humans 'Programmable'?
Your views?

Yes, through teaching. A part of it is genetic too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That something contains conditionals does not mean that it is programmed
...
A program is a set of directives that seeks a certain objective.

I did not state a program is exclusively comprised of conditional statements, however the majority of operations within a program involved conditionals of "if X, do Y, else Z" where the core of the program is 'if objective met, do Y, if not repeat Z"
Obviously a program need an objective, else it will never end.
Besides the above there are other elements that are necessary for the program to work.

No. It is not possible to input data to a human being and then extract that processed data. And that is not programming. That would be using a human to process data.

You have a weird understanding of what is a program and programming.

Here are the various meanings of 'program'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/program?s=t

• a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:
  ..a school lunch program.
  a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed.
  ...a broadcasted television or radio production or similar internet-based content produced for distribution.
  a list of items, pieces, performers, etc., in a musical, theatrical, or other entertainment.
  ...an entertainment with reference to its pieces or numbers: a program of American and French music.
  a planned, coordinated group of activities, procedures, etc., often for a specific purpose, or a facility offering such a series of activities:
  ..a drug rehabilitation program; a graduate program in linguistics.
  a prospectus or syllabus:
  ..a program of courses being offered.
  Also called com·put·er pro·gram .Digital Technology. a precise sequence of instructions enabling a computer to perform a task; a piece of software.

What is most appropriate for this discussion would be this meaning of 'what is program', i.e.

a planned, coordinated group of activities, procedures, etc., often for a specific purpose, or a facility offering such a series of activities:

Let say, any profession sport person would have an objective to win in sport competition.
As such he would need to adopt a program to achieve his objective within his sport.
In carrying out his program, he is "programming" his muscles and brain with the hope that he will achieve his intended objectives.
Why is this not human programming?

In the case of brainwashing, a person is deliberately programmed ideologically to align his thinking and actions to the objective of the "brainwasher" is in politics, cults, and other social groups.
Why is this not human programming?

Where you have an objective to give up bad habits and addiction, e.g. smoking, drugs, sex, etc. you will need to reprogram your brain by rewiring your neural connections to achieve your objectives.
Why is this not human programming?

In all the above cases, there are inputs of data into the brain to initial actions and data will be obtained from outputs to check against conditions.
So why are the above not human programming?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Persuasion is programming.
To ask "are humans programmable" is to ask "are humans persuadable?"

Yes, through teaching. A part of it is genetic too.

Agree with the above.

Wonder why Pyscho cannot get it?

[bahman]

Persuasion is programming.
To ask "are humans programmable" is to ask "are humans persuadable?"

Yes, through teaching. A part of it is genetic too.

Agree with the above.

Wonder why Pyscho cannot get it?

I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.

[Skepdick]

I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.

Which is the same thing as saying "He doesn't think the brain can learn"

And that's absurd.

[bahman]

I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.

Which is the same thing as saying "He doesn't think the brain can learn"

And that's absurd.

No that is not the same.

[Skepdick]

No that is not the same.

Algorithmically - it is.

Machine learning algorithms alter the behaviour of the system as new information is acquired. Whether the source of information had the property we call "intent" is moot. e.g whether the information comes from reality itself or from a human.

To "be programmed" or "to learn" is to alter one's behaviour.

[bahman]

No that is not the same.

Algorithmically - it is.

Machine learning algorithms alter the behaviour of the system as new information is acquired. Whether the source of information had the property we call "intent" is moot. e.g whether the information comes from reality itself or from a human.

To "be programmed" or "to learn" is to alter one's behaviour.

Are you saying that what is stored in the brain is an algorithm? Of course, you can even simulate a brain but that simulation lack understanding.

[Skepdick]

Are you saying that what is stored in the brain is an algorithm? Of course, you can even simulate a brain but that simulation lack understanding.

I don't know what "understanding" is beyond the ability to predict. And algorithms can do that.

Otherwise, I could ask you "do you understand strawberries?". And that question seems... meaningless.

[Iwannaplato]

I think his objection is valid. He doesn't think that the brain is a hardware that can be programmed like a computer.

Which is the same thing as saying "He doesn't think the brain can learn"

And that's absurd.

I don't think programming and learning are utter synonyms. And we should note that so far computers are much simpler than brains. Further when we teach children or adults we do not engage in the same processes as programmers. Now with AI they are starting to get into processes that are more like learning/teaching, but then, it's not just programming anymore.

To treat brains as mere hardware is to reduce them. It's a metaphor. It might be a useful one sometimes. But if you want to make a general claim, it fails because brains are not (just, remotely) the same as computer hardware.

[bahman]

Are you saying that what is stored in the brain is an algorithm? Of course, you can even simulate a brain but that simulation lack understanding.

I don't know what "understanding" is beyond the ability to predict. And algorithms can do that.

Otherwise, I could ask you "do you understand strawberries?". And that question seems... meaningless.

Predicting is one way of understanding when the subject of the study is time ordered. I think that that is information about different objects or subjects that it is stored in the brain rather than an algorithm. Understaing, right or wrong, is a way making connections between the information about subjects and objects in the brain. Our understanding is the subject of constant investigation by conscious mind. Conscious mind is presented by limited instance of experiences and it is through this experience that we eventually realize that our understanding is right or wrong. "Apple is orange" is a wrong statement. We either understand this through tasting them or we look at different linguistic references for each of them to realize that they are different.

[Skepdick]

I don't think programming and learning are utter synonyms.

It's a model. Like all scientific models - it's eternally incomplete.

And we should note that so far computers are much simpler than brains.

Simplicity/complexity is quantifiable in complexity theory.

If the brain is seen as a mesh/network of interconnected parts, the "most complex" it can be is Factorial complexity.

Full mesh inter-connection between all neurons. And we know it's not THAT complex.

Further when we teach children or adults we do not engage in the same processes as programmers.

Oh, but we do! When we teach children OR adults it works best when you teach them in the language that THEY understand, not in the language that YOU understand.

So the first part of teaching AND programming is: learn their language.

I have been demonstrating this mode of persuasion on this forum for a while...

Now with AI they are starting to get into processes that are more like learning/teaching, but then, it's not just programming anymore.

I suspect what you are referring to is reinforcement learning models. In so far as that's "learning" of any sort - it's about learning how to classify things.

How to put things in the "correct" category. This is roughly what babies learn when we ask them to put the round thing in the round hole, and the square thing in the square hole...

It's pattern matching.

To treat brains as mere hardware is to reduce them. It's a metaphor. It might be a useful one sometimes. But if you want to make a general claim, it fails because brains are not (just, remotely) the same as computer hardware.

Oh well, if the reductionism bothers you then I'll side-step the objection by pointing out that quantum physics is computational. So the universe is one giant information system. A computer. And we live in the Matrix!

In that reference frame your objection amounts to "What am I? And no, I am not a computer!!!". Your brain behaves like a computer and that's a useful model.

In the classical view the brain is hardware+software. But there's a deep incompatibility between quantum and classical computation.
The notion of "copying data" (acquiring memories) is incoherent in Quantum Physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem