Holos
Senior Member
This may seem ignorant from the standpoint of a technician or engineer. However, I am so disappointed by having to be present at the demeaning of philosophy as an actual practical and substantial skill in our modern technological world that I will take the belligerent scorn and make it into food - if not for thought that is carelessly discarded, at least for the organism or extended piece of matter that I am.
The question I would like to logically entertain is:
What if there is a revolutionary, cyclical thought fusing functions between memory and energy of a computer? I take as evidence to answer the question my own experience of biological science, considering computers are creative replicas of constantly evolving organisms.
I do not intend with this first post to present the great range of possible differences between evolving organisms and revolving computers. I cannot, however, omit my first impression that adaptive change happens much more faster in computers. Maybe someone will find this an interesting point of entrance into the discussion, although I am sure there are many others to those who are interested.
My experience is that if I am well fed my memory is enhanced. If I am under the strong feelings of hunger my memory fades into the brief present moment and pulses erratically towards a very much desired brief future of being fed. I can pay attention to nothing else and remember nothing other than my severe condition and its solution. This is not only for being deprived but also for being intoxicated (ie. inappropriately fed). My functioning memory is directly associated with my dietary intake.
Now this may be a point for contention with scientists, even from the adverse perspectives within a same field such as biology, say neurology and nutrition. There are two kinds of recognized and accepted memories in biology that we may find an analogy to the memories of computers.
The declarative memory and processual memory in biological organisms and their respective computer counterparts ROM (Read Only Memory) and RAM (Random Access Memory). Each of these having their own subcategories.
Now, if an organism like myself, has no control over my processual memory according to current science and can only effectively change the efficiency of my declarative memory through diligent behavior and sustained habits, then we can also agree that the computer I use has similar features as I cannot modify its RAM without changing the hardware itself (just like I cannot have the memories of another person if I do not transplant their brain inside of my skull), although I can modify its ROM according to the input I give it, since the ROM is an independent structure.
The assumption held here and by me further questioned is that the ROM is and can be modified also only within the realm of hardware, which is the crucial currently held difference between computers and organisms when organisms are endowed of greater flexible intake and modification in their declarative memory manipulation. A human like me, it is assumed, also is sensitive to environmental variability and computers are not. For example, a complete meal may allow me to function under its built and reliable chemistry in appropriation to my organism. The same would happen to a machine if fed a CD-ROM. The difference, however, is that depending on what I ingested prior, even if it has been another appropriate meal at some point, I may not experience the same desired effects of the current carefully selected, once appropriate meal, as in with a computer the variability of appropriate input does not create possibility of unstable or malfunctioning agency depending on sequence or frequency. At this point this situation may seem strange. How can a biological being become sick and a computer cannot when their inputs have already been selected and previously tested - their inputs being equally extensive? We will not consider viruses just yet, because we are only dealing with standard selections for this argument.
Is it not strange, considering these factors, that biological organisms experience then an entire spectrum of variable functioning energy and computers experience only a constant flow of on and off (even if the 0s and 1s are represented in a symbolic percentual spectrum)? Can perhaps we achieve the so called technological singularity to maintain stable variable energy for both computers and living beings? The posing of these questions may seem like the reverse logic of everything I have stated to this point. Can this reversal work as complementary rather than countereffective?
This is close to the question of rather consciousness can also be present in machines or remain exclusive to life (far beyond the obsolete conclusion that life is indeed a machine).
Is it not possible that the memory or memories I provide to my computer, rather in their fundamental form of hardware or software, be used to also generate energy beyond the dependent provision of external sources and in turn generate new memories, perhaps even new forms of memory?
What do you think? Is there anyone here willing to indulge in these matters and find novelty?
The question I would like to logically entertain is:
What if there is a revolutionary, cyclical thought fusing functions between memory and energy of a computer? I take as evidence to answer the question my own experience of biological science, considering computers are creative replicas of constantly evolving organisms.
I do not intend with this first post to present the great range of possible differences between evolving organisms and revolving computers. I cannot, however, omit my first impression that adaptive change happens much more faster in computers. Maybe someone will find this an interesting point of entrance into the discussion, although I am sure there are many others to those who are interested.
My experience is that if I am well fed my memory is enhanced. If I am under the strong feelings of hunger my memory fades into the brief present moment and pulses erratically towards a very much desired brief future of being fed. I can pay attention to nothing else and remember nothing other than my severe condition and its solution. This is not only for being deprived but also for being intoxicated (ie. inappropriately fed). My functioning memory is directly associated with my dietary intake.
Now this may be a point for contention with scientists, even from the adverse perspectives within a same field such as biology, say neurology and nutrition. There are two kinds of recognized and accepted memories in biology that we may find an analogy to the memories of computers.
The declarative memory and processual memory in biological organisms and their respective computer counterparts ROM (Read Only Memory) and RAM (Random Access Memory). Each of these having their own subcategories.
Now, if an organism like myself, has no control over my processual memory according to current science and can only effectively change the efficiency of my declarative memory through diligent behavior and sustained habits, then we can also agree that the computer I use has similar features as I cannot modify its RAM without changing the hardware itself (just like I cannot have the memories of another person if I do not transplant their brain inside of my skull), although I can modify its ROM according to the input I give it, since the ROM is an independent structure.
The assumption held here and by me further questioned is that the ROM is and can be modified also only within the realm of hardware, which is the crucial currently held difference between computers and organisms when organisms are endowed of greater flexible intake and modification in their declarative memory manipulation. A human like me, it is assumed, also is sensitive to environmental variability and computers are not. For example, a complete meal may allow me to function under its built and reliable chemistry in appropriation to my organism. The same would happen to a machine if fed a CD-ROM. The difference, however, is that depending on what I ingested prior, even if it has been another appropriate meal at some point, I may not experience the same desired effects of the current carefully selected, once appropriate meal, as in with a computer the variability of appropriate input does not create possibility of unstable or malfunctioning agency depending on sequence or frequency. At this point this situation may seem strange. How can a biological being become sick and a computer cannot when their inputs have already been selected and previously tested - their inputs being equally extensive? We will not consider viruses just yet, because we are only dealing with standard selections for this argument.
Is it not strange, considering these factors, that biological organisms experience then an entire spectrum of variable functioning energy and computers experience only a constant flow of on and off (even if the 0s and 1s are represented in a symbolic percentual spectrum)? Can perhaps we achieve the so called technological singularity to maintain stable variable energy for both computers and living beings? The posing of these questions may seem like the reverse logic of everything I have stated to this point. Can this reversal work as complementary rather than countereffective?
This is close to the question of rather consciousness can also be present in machines or remain exclusive to life (far beyond the obsolete conclusion that life is indeed a machine).
Is it not possible that the memory or memories I provide to my computer, rather in their fundamental form of hardware or software, be used to also generate energy beyond the dependent provision of external sources and in turn generate new memories, perhaps even new forms of memory?
What do you think? Is there anyone here willing to indulge in these matters and find novelty?
