Differences and similarities between computer mind and human mind

J. Stew · #1 01-14-2006, 05:36 PM

The human mind works like a computer when there is some structure that it follows, like someone who works on an assembly line. The difference between human mind and computer mind is that a human consciousness can notice the mind working, which is to say the human experience is not limited by the mind where the computer mind is limited by the code or structure it was designed to follow. Every conscious human has the capacity to notice his own thoughts and feeling without attaching to them. Computers don't have that ability. The difference between being a slave and being able to create something new is the difference between burping out something standard and burping out something new and more fitting for whatever the situation is. Sometimes it is good to burp out the same things like in an assembly line, but in a deeper sense the evolution of the basic human makeup as well as the capacity to produce creative stuff like the music Bach made is a testament to this fundamental difference between the computer mind and the human mind with it's ability to have an overseeing capacity. This overseeing capacity is the human consciousness and the pure human consciousness is God because the pure consciousness is boundless which is to say it is the same as reality. To be more clear, the small mind gets in the way of the big mind which is just conciousness at its' purest.

So the difference between the computer mind and the human mind is the overseeing capacity which is consciousness which is God. Any arguments?

evolvedForm · #2 01-14-2006, 05:46 PM

I don't understand your sudden jump from 'small'consciousness (human) to 'pure' consciousness. Can you provide an argument for the existence of the latter?

soon2bepro · #3 01-14-2006, 05:51 PM

Here's mine: LOL

Piers · #4 01-14-2006, 06:04 PM

I disagree with most of what I think you said.

J. Stew · #5 01-14-2006, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your sudden jump from 'small'consciousness (human) to 'pure' consciousness. Can you provide an argument for the existence of the latter?

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing that is reading this page is the pure consciousness. The consciousness is already pure in its own nothingness but to the degree that the small mind interferes with the naturally pure consciousness is the degree that the consciousness is tainted. Mental attachments taint the consciousness because then the mind believes it is something else besides the pure consciousness from which thoughts and feeling manifest. First there is the nothingness of consciousness, then there are thoughts and feelings that manifest from the nothingness that is aware of this page right now. So the jump from small mind to big mind is the realization that thoughts are delusions of the small mind and you awaken to the boundless nothingness which is the underlying pervading consciousness.

J. Stew · #6 01-14-2006, 06:07 PM

Fantastic, care to share?

diebitter · #7 01-14-2006, 06:07 PM

The difference is definitely not just (or not even) the capability to self perceive and self-modify (or not). They are different in many, many fundamental ways - structural, mechanisms of processing, parallelism in processing, mechanisms to filter external inputs, and so on.

J. Stew · #8 01-14-2006, 06:10 PM

Do you laugh because you're so happy I'm right or because you don't understand?

J. Stew · #9 01-14-2006, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is definitely not just (or not even) the capability to self perceive and self-modify (or not). They are different in many, many fundamental ways - structural, mechanisms of processing, parallelism in processing, mechanisms to filter external inputs, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes more differences, but I'm talking in a generalized way to reach a fundamental difference. You're being nit-picky no? Do you disagree with the conclusion? If so argue that please. Or if you think these differences you stated work into the conclusion in the original post then explain where you're coming from. You said 'definitely not just (or not even)', so where do you stand, if it's 'not just' then you concede that that is a fundamental difference. If you say 'not even' then you fully disagree with the premise to my argument. Where do you stand?

diebitter · #10 01-14-2006, 06:36 PM

No, I don't think I'll be standing anywhere near this one. Virtually every sentence towards the end is flowery musing, and if I pick each one apart, I'm 'Mr Picky', and if I don't, it's too insubstantial a thesis to attack. I got better things to do that mentally battle cotton wool.

It wins cos it snares, not cos it's true necessarily.

But I did have a good laugh at stuff like 'pure consciousness is boundless which is to say it is the same as reality' - so tnx for that.

And bye now.