Brains vs. Computers

Mental Mainframe, Homo techno, Confusing Consciousness, Faith in Humanity, Examining our Algorithms

Disclaimer: I am not a brain expert nor a computer expert, so these ideas may be somewhat half-baked. (I am not a baker, either.)

I.

Mental Mainframe

Ever since the emergence of the computer, there has been an ongoing debate about whether the human brain itself could be considered a form of computer. 

Abbreviated from Ray Kurzweil, How to Create a Mind

I’ve long pondered the metaphor that the human brain is a computer and the mind is software. Like a computer, which is a physical object, the brain is a physical organ. And the mind, which either emerges from the brain or exists separately from it (more on this in Idea #3), bears a similar non-physical quality to software, which is encoded in a computer. Despite the obvious differences in the architecture and building blocks of brains and computers, they function in strikingly similar ways and exhibit significant plasticity—that is, they’re capable of learning new things and adapting to change.

While the rational part of me wants to accept the notion that human brains are essentially computers, another part would like to believe that our brains (and everything else that makes humans human, for that matter) are more than just organic hardware. As a spiritual person, I might assert that humans possess a spiritual dimension. Surely, computers aren’t spiritual… right? I could also reason that, unlike computers, humans are emotional, free-spirited, multifaceted, created in God’s likeness, etc., etc., etc. Yet, underneath all my justifications, there still remains a part that wonders, “Are we just computers?”

The debate continues.

II.

Homo techno

The Machine hums! Did you know that? Its hum penetrates our blood, and may even guide our thoughts. Who knows!

E.M. Forster, The Machine Stops

Although we might not have computer-brains, the emergence of technology has undoubtedly altered our species. Technology has not only changed how we interact with each other and the world around us, it’s also changed our brains—both functionally and structurally.

Here are a few of those changes, according to one peer-reviewed article: 

• Extensive touchscreen use can reorganize the somatosensory cortex, likely to the detriment of motor coordination skills

• Constant exposure to digital media at a young age impacts cortical responsiveness, potentially harming object and face recognition later in life

• Increased diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) correlates to increased device usage

• Superficial online reading habits link to decreased reading comprehension and engagement in text analysis

• In young adults, increased device usage correlates to lower cognitive empathy

• In preschoolers, increased screen engagement results in poorer white-matter integrity in brain areas associated with language comprehension and capacity

Numerous studies have demonstrated the impact of ubiquitous technology use on the human brain, but what’s perhaps more noteworthy is how technology has changed our minds. Our most precious asset—our attention—is increasingly spending more time in the 2-D digital realm than in the 3-D natural world. 

This mind-shift (literally) has profoundly changed what we do with our lives. For example, as a writer and creative, I find myself more concerned with the aesthetics of this digital newsletter than I am with honing my calligraphy skills. Even the structure and delivery of these 5 Big Ideas are influenced by their distribution and reception via email and Substack. Had I produced a printed publication, or even a handwritten one, it would look vastly different (if it even existed at all). 

So much of our lives are moving to the digital space. Our education is moving there. Our currency is moving there. Our work is moving there. Our shopping is moving there. Our art is moving there. Our entertainment is moving there. Our communication (or lack thereof) is moving there. Our minds are moving there. 

Human consciousness is seemingly evolving into something that abides in both the natural world and the digital one. Our biology might even be transitioning from that of Homo sapiens to Homo techno.* 

* My first introduction to the term Homo techno came from Grimes in an interview with Lex Fridman. (Fun fact: I met Grimes before she became software.)

III.   

Confusing Consciousness

[Discussing] consciousness can reduce even the most fastidious thinker to blabbering incoherence. 

Adapted from Colin McGinn

The central issue raised by the brains vs. computers debate revolves around the idea of consciousness. Most people, myself included, perceive humans to be conscious beings and computers to be devoid of consciousness. I won’t even try to pretend to be an expert on consciousness, because I don’t think there are any true experts. Consciousness is a matter of philosophy, which leads to diverse interpretations of its qualities and to whom/what can be considered “conscious.” Due to its subjective nature, consciousness eludes scientific measurement. That’s because it is not objectively real. 

We also have various definitions for “consciousness.” One definition likens it to the mind. And there are numerous theories on how the conscious mind originates. While some consider consciousness to be a fundamental property of all physical systems, others perceive it as a metaphysical phenomenon, and still others regard it as an illusion created by the brain. Yet another definition of consciousness equates it to awareness. For example, one is considered to be “conscious” when making intentional decisions and “unconscious” when performing tasks on autopilot. The word is also sometimes used interchangeably with metacognition, which is the capacity to think about one’s own thoughts.

So, when it comes to the question of whether consciousness is an innate aspect of human nature (and not of man-made machines), the answer is: it depends. What kind of consciousness are we talking about?

IV.   

Faith in Humanity

Experiencing rapid technological advancement in real time can be daunting. I sometimes question whether or not I want to bring kids into this world because I worry about their safety and freedom. I wonder what will become of them… will they merge with AI and become cyborgs? Will they be enslaved by their devices?

Or will they have a better existence than we do now?

It would be foolish to assert that technology has only led to negative consequences for humanity. Technological progress has vastly improved our standards of living, surpassing any other advancement in human history by orders of magnitude. Humans are evolving alongside technology, and it’s possible that the changes we’re experiencing are simply growing pains. Maybe consciousness (whatever that means) is evolving into a better version of itself and using technology as the vehicle with which it does so.

I currently reside in the philosophical camp that understands “consciousness” to be a metaphysical phenomenon. I believe that humans are spiritual beings at our core, and that our spirits inhabit physical bodies to experience life on earth, and when our bodies decay, our spirit will return to wherever it came from. By no means can we measure such a phenomenon using the laws of physics, but we can have faith in its potential. To trust that humanity is more than just an advanced biological computer, we must take a leap of faith. And, perhaps, it is faith itself that distinguishes us as different from everything else in the natural and man-made world. Maybe it’s faith that makes humans human.

Considering this, what if we were to have faith in technology and the future of humanity? What if we are to trust that everything will turn out alright? Better yet, what if we were to believe that we will be significantly better off in the future, thanks to the intelligent tools we’ve developed? By casting doubt on the technological age (of which we’re already in too deep), we’re simultaneously relinquishing faith in ourselves. Holding two conflicting arguments in our minds is unrealistic—we must either lose faith in the future of humanity or have faith in it. The decision we make in this matter is crucial for the fate of human consciousness.

V.   

Examining our Algorithms

Nobody phrases it this way, but I think that artificial intelligence is almost a humanities discipline. It is really an attempt to understand human intelligence and human cognition.

Sebastian Thrun (source)

Between our spiritual selves and our brains lies an operating system: the mind. If we were to conceptualize the mind through the lens of a computer, it is essentially “brain software” containing various algorithms responsible for automating the handling of inputs. These algorithms process information based on familiar patterns. Some algorithms instruct the mind to eliminate contradictory ideas, while others encourage the mind to examine specific concepts further. Although we encounter new inputs constantly, how we process incoming information depends on the algorithms we are running. This filtered mode of thinking leads to massive inconsistencies in human understanding and can hinder our ability to assimilate novel ideas. The remedy for this is critical thinking; however, this skill is often underutilized.

Critical thinking requires us to reconsider our hardwired algorithms. This entails questioning and interpreting new information from diverse angles rather than relying on past patterns. Critical thinking doesn’t come naturally or easily, but, like all skills, it can be honed through practice.

I recognize parallels between my algorithm analogy and what author don Miguel Ruiz refers to as “programming” in his book The Four Agreements. Our mental programming, he suggests, consists of the belief systems that were handed down to us by other humans. Through this process of “domestication,” we adopted others’ behavioral norms, societal standards, and moral values. Even our programming language (e.g., English, Mandarin) is predetermined for us. Ultimately, our worldview is limited by the programs our minds are running.

If our belief systems cause us suffering, we can choose to terminate their programs. After all, our thought patterns are dictated by beliefs that we’ve agreed to at some point in our lives. If we no longer conform with old beliefs, their programs will gradually become incompatible to our minds. Instead, we can embrace new beliefs, building new neural pathways for our brains to process information. The more we process inputs through the programs that benefit us, the less influence old programs have over us.

When it comes to change, we’re not hopeless. Perhaps we’re just running bad programs. 

5 Big Ideas is a free newsletter and a labor of love. If you find value in my ideas each week, consider financially supporting this newsletter.

Another way to support 5 Big Ideas is by forwarding this email!

Lastly, a BIG thank you is due to Renata and Jeff for your generous support – I’m beyond words!