mind the mind

[Waechter418]

The way mind processes data reflects in its offspring, the computer.
However, the coordination capabilities of latter improve continuously, whereas mind seems to have problems handling the increase of external & internal, objective & subjective data.
More often than not, this is blamed on its hardware, i.e. the physiological aspects, yet rarely on the programs that coordinate the data, despite that many of them are obviously outdated, inefficient, hijacked by emotions and/or malwares which question the capabilities and sometimes even deny the functions of mind, thus impeding the possibility to repair & update its software.
But to alter something requires knowledge and understanding of its structures and dynamics – in this case of the mind.
Lamentably, the mind of Sapiens knows more about molecules and galaxies than about itself. Not because Self-knowledge is an impossible task – after all everyone spends a lifetime with/in his/her mind – but because of millennia of systematic self-denial and subjection to external, superior, eternal etc powers called god, fate and whatever else seems suitable to cover up a lack of Self-responsibility.
Admittedly, Self-response-ability can be a pain in the butt – yet it can also be a blessing, as it may entail the realisation that all (external/internal/subjective/objective) phenomenon are interrelated - and coordinated by/in the mind.

[Terrapin Station]

Were you just wanting to get that off your chest, or?

[Waechter418]

Were you just wanting to get that off your chest, or?

my mind is not in my chest

[Marvin_Edwards]

The way mind processes data reflects in its offspring, the computer.
However, the coordination capabilities of latter improve continuously, whereas mind seems to have problems handling the increase of external & internal, objective & subjective data.
More often than not, this is blamed on its hardware, i.e. the physiological aspects, yet rarely on the programs that coordinate the data, despite that many of them are obviously outdated, inefficient, hijacked by emotions and/or malwares which question the capabilities and sometimes even deny the functions of mind, thus impeding the possibility to repair & update its software.
But to alter something requires knowledge and understanding of its structures and dynamics – in this case of the mind.
Lamentably, the mind of Sapiens knows more about molecules and galaxies than about itself. Not because Self-knowledge is an impossible task – after all everyone spends a lifetime with/in his/her mind – but because of millennia of systematic self-denial and subjection to external, superior, eternal etc powers called god, fate and whatever else seems suitable to cover up a lack of Self-responsibility.
Admittedly, Self-response-ability can be a pain in the butt – yet it can also be a blessing, as it may entail the realisation that all (external/internal/subjective/objective) phenomenon are interrelated - and coordinated by/in the mind.

I don't know that the problem is necessarily in the equipment. There are books on self-improvement of the mind out there, with techniques for memory improvement and strategies for doing math in ones head, etc.

Someone, possibly here, suggested a book by the Arbinger Institute called "The Anatomy of Peace: Getting to the Heart of Conflict". I've been reading it on my kindle that I keep by the potty. It's been very enlightening as to how we build boxes around ourselves to justify our choices. It's very good and I'd recommend it to anyone.

[Count Lucanor]

The computational theory of mind is obsolete.

[Waechter418]

The computational theory of mind is obsolete.

Oooyeahh!!!!

[Marvin_Edwards]

The computational theory of mind is obsolete.

I'm not familiar with the "computational theory of mind". However, I know that, regardless of any theory, the mind does perform computations.

[Pattern-chaser]

The way mind processes data reflects in its offspring, the computer.

Did you know that we humans have a habit? We compare our brains with the most complicated bit of machinery we have invented so far. Apparently, we used to compare brains and minds with automated looms, when they were the Big Thing. The traditions has come down to us in the present day, when we habitually compare our brains and mind with computers. All of these comparisons are metaphors, used as we do, to foster understanding of something we don't currently understand (or brains and minds). IMO, all of these attempted metaphors have failed, as they don't tell us anything worthwhile about our brains or minds.

IMO, the way mind processes data does not resemble or reflect its offspring, the computer. Not is any significant or meaningful way.

[Pattern-chaser]

Apologies: "All of these comparisons are metaphors, used as we do, to foster understanding of something we don't currently understand (our brains and minds)."

[Count Lucanor]

The computational theory of mind is obsolete.

I'm not familiar with the "computational theory of mind". However, I know that, regardless of any theory, the mind does perform computations.

One part of what the brain does, that is: calculations, might resemble machine computations, but that as far as we can go with metaphors.

Why Your Brain is Not a Computer
Your Brain Does Not Process Information And It Is Not a Computer

[Marvin_Edwards]

I'm not familiar with the "computational theory of mind". However, I know that, regardless of any theory, the mind does perform computations.

One part of what the brain does, that is: calculations, might resemble machine computations, but that as far as we can go with metaphors.

Why Your Brain is Not a Computer
Your Brain Does Not Process Information And It Is Not a Computer

I disagree with the Aeon article "The Empty Brain" (your second link). We can define memory functionally as the ability to store and retrieve information. And we can easily demonstrate that function by asking someone to remember something and then ask them to recall it later. How this information is represented in the brain is unimportant. It will certainly be very different from how the computer performs this operation on silicon chips.

We need to remember that computers were designed as an alterative form of intelligence. In order to do that we would need to have some idea about what intelligence does in a human being. Human beings perform arithmetic calculations. They memorize and recall information. They learn new behavior, like catching a ball, by trial and error (not by arithmetic calculations). Information processing was not invented for computers. It is an emulation of one of the things that we humans do with our brains. And the notion of information existed and was used long before computers were imagined.

[Count Lucanor]

I disagree with the Aeon article "The Empty Brain" (your second link). We can define memory functionally as the ability to store and retrieve information. And we can easily demonstrate that function by asking someone to remember something and then ask them to recall it later. How this information is represented in the brain is unimportant. It will certainly be very different from how the computer performs this operation on silicon chips.

It doesn't look, though, that human cognition does this in the same way that computers do. It simply doesn't store digital coded information to retrieve, because the inputs received are of a different nature. Our senses are not simply hardware peripherals. Human memory is most likely sense experience relived, which is why, unlike computer memory, tends to be fuzzy, inaccurate. You might think you have a clear memory of your right hand, after all it has been with you for decades, and yet you will not be able to describe every detail of it.

We need to remember that computers were designed as an alterative form of intelligence. In order to do that we would need to have some idea about what intelligence does in a human being. Human beings perform arithmetic calculations. They memorize and recall information. They learn new behavior, like catching a ball, by trial and error (not by arithmetic calculations). Information processing was not invented for computers. It is an emulation of one of the things that we humans do with our brains. And the notion of information existed and was used long before computers were imagined.

A parrot might emulate perfectly a human talking, but that does not mean that parrot speech is a key to understanding how human language works. Computer functions can be metaphorically called 'intelligence', but computers simply don't think, they just perform mechanical, syntactic operations, which can be very complex and sophisticated, but without any semantic relations involved. To process information is not the same as understanding it. That was the idea behind Searle's Chinese Room Experiment, which debunked the idea that the human mind is a computer.

[Fellowmater]

One part of what the brain does, that is: calculations, might resemble machine computations, but that as far as we can go with metaphors.

I disagree with the Aeon article "The Empty Brain" (your second link). We can define memory functionally as the ability to store and retrieve information. And we can easily demonstrate that function by asking someone to remember something and then ask them to recall it later. How this information is represented in the brain is unimportant. It will certainly be very different from how the computer performs this operation on silicon chips.

We need to remember that computers were designed as an alterative form of intelligence. In order to do that we would need to have some idea about what intelligence does in a human being. Human beings perform arithmetic calculations. They memorize and recall information. They learn new behavior, like catching a ball, by trial and error (not by arithmetic calculations). Information processing was not invented for computers. It is an emulation of one of the things that we humans do with our brains. And the notion of information existed and was used long before computers were imagined.

I'm sure there will come a time that a machine will think or process thoughts the same way we humans do.

[Waechter418]

"I'm sure there will come a time that a machine will think or process thoughts the same way we humans do."

Possible, but not desirable - considering the mess our thinking gets us into......

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The way mind processes data reflects in its offspring, the computer.

I don't necessarily disagree, but just to nitpick, I think it would be more accurate to say that the offspring (computers) reflect the creating parent (our human minds), rather than vice versa.

While there's certainly ways in which the above is true, I believe there's also a degree to which the exact opposite is the case: That computers are specifically designed to compliment rather than mimic our brains, to fill the gaps and be the yin to our yang. In other words, there's ways in which we specifically design computers to do what we don't do well and not do what we can easily do or like to do. That could help explain why we designed computers to be so good at arithmetic (literal computing). A human mind is great a many things, but quickly and reliably calculating the square root of 13 is not one of them.

Lamentably, the mind of Sapiens knows more about molecules and galaxies than about itself[...] because of millennia of systematic self-denial and subjection to external, superior, eternal etc powers called god, fate and whatever else seems suitable to cover up a lack of Self-responsibility.
Admittedly, Self-response-ability can be a pain in the butt – yet it can also be a blessing, as it may entail the realisation that all (external/internal/subjective/objective) phenomenon are interrelated - and coordinated by/in the mind.

I don't disagree with what you have written, and I bet we can both agree that it is not the full story. Incidentally, your above quoted comments, especially the multiple references to self-responsibility, seem to share a lot in common with my overall philosophy, which I roughly outlined in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom. In that topic, I quoted Shaw's words about how humans dread self-responsibility, which of course is another way to express that it can be a "pain in the butt" as you accurately put it.

A parrot might emulate perfectly a human talking, but that does not mean that parrot speech is a key to understanding how human language works.

Well said. I agree.