If you read my entry from last week,
you will recall that I devoted 398 words to convincing you that a person is “a
collection of conditioned organs dynamically reacting to various stimuli.” And
if you did not read my previous entry, please do so now. It’s okay… I’ll wait.
Finished yet? No? Well come on now, I
haven’t got all day. Or perhaps I do. I’m not really sure how time works in the
sense of a narration in type. A philosophical dilemma for another day though,
because by now, I am going to assume that you have either read my previous
entry or have stopped reading this one, in which case good riddance. Now for
the rest of you who persisted, I will attempt to devote the remainder of my 398
words convincing you that, while everything I said was true, there is more to
the story than just that. What am I left with… 241 words. Perfect, let’s begin.
A person’s brain is nothing more
than an organ conditioned by previous experiences, true, but ponder this. If
all of your brain connections were mapped, and then inserted into a computer
capable of processing that information at the same rate as the human nervous
system, would that computer be you. Your initial instinct is probably to say
no. Certainly that computer could not feel emotions like a human could. But let
me counter that human emotion is nothing more than conditioning. Happiness is
nothing more than a chemical response to stimuli that have been associated with
positive outcomes. And, while a computer certainly could not feel happiness, it could recognize
events that should elicit happiness, and even determine appropriate responses
based on what you would do if you were happy.
Now imagine a different scenario. Imagine
you were cold. Again, the computer would not feel cold, but it could measure
the temperature and determine based on a certain objective threshold if it should
be cold or not. It could even know it
should seek warmth. But the computer cannot be affected by the cold. If you try
to utilize fine motor control while being substantially cold, you will notice
that you are significantly impaired. Your muscles simply do not respond as well
in the cold. It would take a very sophisticated computer to replicate that
response, and it would certainly need more than a map of your brain.
Now, let’s look at one final
scenario. Imagine you are proficient at playing the piano. And if you actually are proficient at playing the piano, way
to be talented. Now let us say that we mapped your brain as before, you then
learned a new song on piano, and we mapped your brain again and compared that
to your baseline. Theoretically, this comparison would teach the computer how
to play the song you just learned. The problem, however, is that humans really
are more than just brains. Humans are entire organisms.
As
a brief aside, psychologists often debate over whether to find root causes of
behavior or observe behavior in context in order to make predictions. While I
am personally a proponent of the belief that given enough variables root causes
are all you need, the fact of the matter is that we rarely have nearly enough
variables to make such assertions. Therefore, the observation of gross behavior
is really quite useful in the interim.
Back
to my point, humans are more than just brains. How much of playing a piano is
dictated by your brain, and how much is in the body itself. Certainly, the same
brain controlling an adult would produce a different song than if it were
controlling a child’s body. The notes might be the same but the manner in which
the keys are pressed, the transitions between chords, the weight of the hands
and feet on the keys and peddles would all be slightly different. So while a
computer might be able to ascertain the notes in a song and the rhythm in which
they should be played, it would never be able play that song quite the same as
you would without your body.
Alright, how did I do? Did I successfully
unconvince you of what I had convinced you of last week? Or… if you were unconvinced
last week, did I now convince you of what I failed to convince you of last
week? The moral of this story is flexibility. Never be afraid to adopt a new
view on life.
748
words. Not even close.
-AMS
No comments:
Post a Comment