Are Humans 'Programmable'?

[psycho]

Conditionals or any number of operators do not indicate the existence of a program.
The objective of a program is not the end of its routine but to fulfill the task proposed by the programmer.

I have already stated, a program is not exclusively and explicitly comprised of conditional statement.
The objective of a program can be the end of its processes but not in all cases, where the activities are still maintained.

All these examples are contained in the concept "A program is a set of directives that seeks a certain objective."

So we agree on this.

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?

The athlete does not program his muscles !!!

Following a program is NOT programming.

He may have created the program (the list of directives) and then followed the program (doing the exercises).

It is not correct to consider that one is programming oneself when one executes any list of directives.

Say:

- "I programmed a certain amount of tasks for the rest of the week"

It does not have the same meaning as:

- "I programmed the computer with a racing game"

The concept is different. You would never use them interchangeably.

The directives of the first case can be disregarded by the supposedly programmed entity.

The directives of the second case are not reconsiderable by the programmed entity.

Ordering someone to complete a task is not programming that person.

Note the meaning of 'programming'

• https://www.dictionary.com/browse/programming?s=t
  Programming = the act or process of planning or writing a program.
  e.g. the selection and scheduling of programs for transmission, as for a television station or network, or an internet-based digital distributor.
  the programs scheduled.
  
  ORIGIN OF PROGRAMMING
  First recorded in 1885–90; program + -ing

Btw, are you aware of the philosophical Principle of Charity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Originally I wrote,
"All humans are "programmed" with a potential 'program' of XYZ via evolution. That is literally 'programming' albeit not used commonly.
The activation of the program is carried out spontaneously.

The term "human programming" [About 82,100 results (0.48 seconds) ] would mean the set-up of the program with its intended objective and set of activities and carrying out the processes simultaneously.
[/quote]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was badly edited so I hope my answers correspond to your comments!

Note the meaning of 'programming'
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/programming?s=t
Programming = the act or process of planning or writing a program.
e.g. the selection and scheduling of programs for transmission, as for a television station or network, or an internet-based digital distributor.
the programs scheduled.

ORIGIN OF PROGRAMMING
First recorded in 1885–90; program + -ing

It always catches my attention when you provide references that prove my point.

Btw, are you aware of the philosophical Principle of Charity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Your charity acting defense is fun.

Originally I wrote,
"All humans are "programmed" with a potential 'program' of XYZ via evolution. That is literally 'programming' albeit not used commonly.
The activation of the program is carried out spontaneously.

No. Our DNA is not a program.

That is metaphorical!

The term "human programming" [About 82,100 results (0.48 seconds) ] would mean the set-up of the program with its intended objective and set of activities and carrying out the processes simultaneously.

How many results does "Astrology" give?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. Our DNA is not a program.

That is metaphorical!

If you think the programming is confined ONLY to computers which is dogmatic thinking.

The term "human programming" [About 82,100 results (0.48 seconds) ] would mean the set-up of the program with its intended objective and set of activities and carrying out the processes simultaneously.

How many results does "Astrology" give?

As I had stated, you have a very weird way of thinking, tantamount to low intellectual cognition. You need to apply the Principle of Charity.

• Note the term 'god,'
  About 2,620,000,000 results (0.69 seconds)
  and I will not use that number to justify god is a real thing.
  note;
  God is an Impossibility [to be real]
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

My point is that the large number of the term [human programming] in google I mentioned is to show that at least it is not some rare terms from some weirdoes.
And the term 'human programming' can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically to be real by testing as in brainwashing and similar processes.

[Skepdick]

No. Our DNA is not a program.

That is metaphorical!

Truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation and decoration. --Friedrich Nietzsche

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics is a science field that is similar to but distinct from biological computation, while it is often considered synonymous to computational biology. Biological computation uses bioengineering and biology to build biological computers, whereas bioinformatics uses computation to better understand biology. Bioinformatics and computational biology involve the analysis of biological data, particularly DNA, RNA, and protein sequences. The field of bioinformatics experienced explosive growth starting in the mid-1990s, driven largely by the Human Genome Project and by rapid advances in DNA sequencing technology.

Analyzing biological data to produce meaningful information involves writing and running software programs that use algorithms from graph theory, artificial intelligence, soft computing, data mining, image processing, and computer simulation. The algorithms in turn depend on theoretical foundations such as discrete mathematics, control theory, system theory, information theory, and statistics.

[psycho]

you have a very weird way of thinking, tantamount to low intellectual cognition.

It is obvious that the conversation comes to an end.

[Skepdick]

It is obvious that the conversation comes to an end.

Only if you choose to end it...

Or you could choose to hear the words as a fact, and not as an insult and ask yourself "Hmmmm, what is he seeing that I don't?"

Think of it this way: I can trivially program you to not talk to me by constantly challenging your dearest assumptions.

[FlashDangerpants]

you have a very weird way of thinking, tantamount to low intellectual cognition.

It is obvious that the conversation comes to an end.

When the autistic kid calls the dude named psycho a retard, we should all pause for a moment to aknowledge that the Philosophy Now forum has attained its final state.

[psycho]

you have a very weird way of thinking, tantamount to low intellectual cognition.

It is obvious that the conversation comes to an end.

When the autistic kid calls the dude named psycho a retard, we should all pause for a moment to aknowledge that the Philosophy Now forum has attained its final state.

I was referring to the fact that, given the lack of arguments that support a certain position, I cannot see what I could answer that is of any interest.

I note that my username is considered a factor in this forum.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is obvious that the conversation comes to an end.

When the autistic kid calls the dude named psycho a retard, we should all pause for a moment to aknowledge that the Philosophy Now forum has attained its final state.

I was referring to the fact that, given the lack of arguments that support a certain position, I cannot see what I could answer that is of any interest.

I note that my username is considered a factor in this forum.

It would be a bit weird if I were to suggest forum names matter all that much.

[attofishpi]

Humans are SO programmable it is truly not funny.

ALL matter at the binary sub-atomic level is at the behest of a 3rd party intelligence (they tend to call it 'God')

Thus, all matter - all synapses within the makeup of wo/mans brains are indeed - programmable.

[psycho]

When the autistic kid calls the dude named psycho a retard, we should all pause for a moment to aknowledge that the Philosophy Now forum has attained its final state.

I was referring to the fact that, given the lack of arguments that support a certain position, I cannot see what I could answer that is of any interest.

I note that my username is considered a factor in this forum.

It would be a bit weird if I were to suggest forum names matter all that much.

I agree with your pants.

[Skepdick]

I agree with your pants.

Who wears pants on a philosophy forum?

[psycho]

Humans are SO programmable it is truly not funny.

ALL matter at the binary sub-atomic level is at the behest of a 3rd party intelligence (they tend to call it 'God')

Thus, all matter - all synapses within the makeup of wo/mans brains are indeed - programmable.

Do you adhere to the idea that we are a simulation or do you suppose that we are just puppets of some intelligent entity?

[Skepdick]

Do you adhere to the idea that we are a simulation or do you suppose that we are just puppets of some intelligent entity?

Isn't that the exact same question?

If we are in a simulation we are puppets of the programmers.

[bahman]

Humans are SO programmable it is truly not funny.

ALL matter at the binary sub-atomic level is at the behest of a 3rd party intelligence (they tend to call it 'God')

Thus, all matter - all synapses within the makeup of wo/mans brains are indeed - programmable.

Do you adhere to the idea that we are a simulation or do you suppose that we are just puppets of some intelligent entity?

We (Conscious minds) are partly in the simulation that other minds create. Our bodies partially belong to us. We don't have full control over everything.

[psycho]

Humans are SO programmable it is truly not funny.

ALL matter at the binary sub-atomic level is at the behest of a 3rd party intelligence (they tend to call it 'God')

Thus, all matter - all synapses within the makeup of wo/mans brains are indeed - programmable.

Do you adhere to the idea that we are a simulation or do you suppose that we are just puppets of some intelligent entity?

We (Conscious minds) are partly in the simulation that other minds create. Our bodies partially belong to us. We don't have full control over everything.

That other minds build conceptual models of us would not imply that we lose control of our actions.

Do you interpret this dynamic as a form of programming?