Computers And The Soul Of Man

[William Schryver]

I’ve opted to start a new thread to continue a discussion that commenced in this thread: Robert Ritner and Joseph Smith. It is an extension of the single post I made on that thread, which can be found here.

In that thread, a side discussion ensued in which various ideas were bandied about concerning the relationship of computer software and hardware, and the possible analogies to human existence. I posted a thought that was, in retrospect, rather undeveloped. Now I would like to expand on that thought:

I began to program computers for a living back in 1985, and have continued to do so until the present day. As such, I have been able to observe first-hand the computer’s utter and complete subjugation of the world and its inhabitants—all during the relatively short span of my adulthood.

One fascinating aspect of the age of the computer is how programming languages have evolved. Of course, at first, a programmer had to be able to, more or less, directly manipulate the hardware elements of a computer. I can well recall having to try to decipher opaque Assembler routines, or (in the interest of severe RAM constraints—64k total on my first system) having to use BITON and BITOF commands in order to use one single byte field in such a way that it could serve as multiple indicators. I remember writing the main transaction entry program for a credit union with three branches. It had to permit up to 7 simultaneous users (with 7 unique instances of all the variables, of course) and still fit within the constraints of the 64k RAM limit. Oh, those were the days. You actually had to take into consideration the architecture and unique properties of the hardware. Nowadays, programmers really give no thought to things like that. You simply don’t have to. The system I work on now has 8 64-bit processors (upgradeable to 32), 64 Gigabytes of RAM (expandable to 8 Terabytes), and I’ve lost track of how many terabytes of disk drive space it has. Servers like this one can be linked in parallel to create stunningly capable supercomputers. IBM linked together 90 of them to make the Watson Supercomputer of Jeopardy fame. But even Watson only places 49th on a recent list of the world’s Top 50 Supercomputers.

With the astonishing increase, over the past quarter century, in processor speed, available RAM, and disk storage space, the nature of software and software development has changed rather dramatically. Programming languages have consistently become “higher level”—meaning essentially that the distance between the programming language and the nuts and bolts manipulation of the hardware elements has grown wider and wider. For the most part, programmers don’t really understand how the computer actually works. It’s simply not necessary. All they need to know is how to “speak” in a language that can be translated into a “dialect,” as it were, that the computer is capable of understanding. This translation is the function of a very particular kind of computer program called a “compiler.”

All computer programs must be “translated” via the “compiler” from what is called the “source code” to the actual binary “object code” that is loaded into a computer’s RAM when an application is launched. If you printed out the “source code” of an application, you would see that its structure and terminology are such that, for the most part, anyone could trace its logic flow. The “high-level” programming language is designed to be similar to actual human language. On the other hand, if you printed out the binary “object code” that the computer actually uses, it would be nothing but a long, incomprehensible string of ones and zeros; billions of on/off switches, one after another.

So what’s my point? Well, simply this:

From my perspective as a computer programmer, and as a believer in the doctrines of the restored gospel, the nature and structure of the modern computer is, in many ways, very analogous to my understanding of the nature and structure of man.

To wit:

• 
  
• The body of man is the “hardware” element.
  `
  
• The brain (or mind) of man is the “compiler,” or the thing that translates thought (“source code”) into signals/commands/etc. which activate and govern bodily functions.
  `
  
• The spirit of man is the conscious intelligence that creates the “source code.” It is the “source” of the creative spark; the intelligence that conceives the application—without which the brain and body would be nothing but a few pounds of water, salt, flesh, bone, and blood.
  

Of course, there are (similar to many such things in a computer) some things that are “pre-loaded” into the body: the autonomic nervous system, for example—systems and functions that act more or less independent of consciousness. That does not, in my estimation, detract whatsoever from the aptness of the analogy I propose, which is as follows:

Just as there are three distinct elements that make up a computer system, software/compiler/hardware, so are there also three distinct elements that make up the soul of man: spirit/mind/body.

Or so it seems to me.

I look forward to your ideas on the matter.

Edit: fixed a blatant typo!

Edited September 9, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

I want to emphasize the fact that my thoughts on this matter are very much incomplete and evolving. I fully expect others to help me refine my idea as this discussion develops.

[ERayR]

I’ve opted to start a new thread to continue a discussion that commenced in this thread: Robert Ritner and Joseph Smith. It is an extension of the single post I made on that thread, which can be found here.

In that thread, a side discussion ensued in which various ideas were bandied about concerning the relationship of computer software and hardware, and the possible analogies to human existence. I posted a thtough that was, in retrospect, rather undeveloped. Now I would like to expand on that thought:

I began to program computers for a living back in 1985, and have continued to do so until the present day. As such, I have been able to observe first-hand the computer’s utter and complete subjugation of the world and its inhabitants—all during the relatively short span of my adulthood.

One fascinating aspect of the age of the computer is how programming languages have evolved. Of course, at first, a programmer had to be able to, more or less, directly manipulate the hardware elements of a computer. I can well recall having to try to decipher opaque Assembler routines, or (in the interest of severe RAM constraints—64k total on my first system) having to use BITON and BITOF commands in order to use one single byte field in such a way that it could serve as multiple indicators. I remember writing the main transaction entry program for a credit union with three branches. It had to permit up to 7 simultaneous users (with 7 unique instances of all the variables, of course) and still fit within the constraints of the 64k RAM limit. Oh, those were the days. You actually had to take into consideration the architecture and unique properties of the hardware. Nowadays, programmers really give no thought to things like that. You simply don’t have to. The system I work on now has 8 64-bit processors (upgradeable to 32), 64 Gigabytes of RAM (expandable to 8 Terabytes), and I’ve lost track of how many terabytes of disk drive space it has. Servers like this one can be linked in parallel to create stunningly capable supercomputers. IBM linked together 90 of them to make the Watson Supercomputer of Jeopardy fame. But even Watson only places 49th on a recent list of the world’s Top 50 Supercomputers.

With the astonishing increase, over the past quarter century, in processor speed, available RAM, and disk storage space, the nature of software and software development has changed rather dramatically. Programming languages have consistently become “higher level”—meaning essentially that the distance between the programming language and the nuts and bolts manipulation of the hardware elements has grown wider and wider. For the most part, programmers don’t really understand how the computer actually works. It’s simply not necessary. All they need to know is how to “speak” in a language that can be translated into a “dialect,” as it were, that the computer is capable of understanding. This translation is the function of a very particular kind of computer program called a “compiler.”

All computer programs must be “translated” via the “compiler” from what is called the “source code” to the actual binary “object code” that is loaded into a computer’s RAM when an application is launched. If you printed out the “source code” of an application, you would see that its structure and terminology are such that, for the most part, anyone could trace its logic flow. The “high-level” programming language is designed to be similar to actual human language. On the other hand, if you printed out the binary “object code” that the computer actually uses, it would be nothing but a long, incomprehensible string of ones and zeros; billions of on/off switches, one after another.

So what’s my point? Well, simply this:

From my perspective as a computer programmer, and as a believer in the doctrines of the restored gospel, the nature and structure of the modern computer is, in many ways, very analogous to my understanding of the nature and structure of man.

To wit:

• 
  
• The body of man is the “hardware” element.
  `
  
• The brain (or mind) of man is the “compiler,” or the thing that translates thought (“source code”) into signals/commands/etc. which activate and govern bodily functions.
  `
  
• The spirit of man is the conscious intelligence that creates the “source code.” It is the “source” of the creative spark; the intelligence that conceives the application—without which the brain and body would be nothing but a few pounds of water, salt, flesh, bone, and blood.
  

Of course, there are (similar to many such things in a computer) some things that are “pre-loaded” into the body: the autonomic nervous system, for example—systems and functions that act more or less independent of consciousness. That does not, in my estimation, detract whatsoever from the aptness of the analogy I propose, which is as follows:

Just as there are three distinct elements that make up a computer system, software/compiler/hardware, so are there also three distinct elements that make up the soul of man: spirit/mind/body.

Or so it seems to me.

I look forward to your ideas on the matter.

I don't know about all that but you could be about right. It works with the idea of a friend of mine that says all life is, is just a college lab experiment anyway.

[etana]

I’ve opted to start a new thread to continue a discussion that commenced in this thread: Robert Ritner and Joseph Smith. It is an extension of the single post I made on that thread, which can be found here.

In that thread, a side discussion ensued in which various ideas were bandied about concerning the relationship of computer software and hardware, and the possible analogies to human existence. I posted a thtough that was, in retrospect, rather undeveloped. Now I would like to expand on that thought:

I began to program computers for a living back in 1985, and have continued to do so until the present day. As such, I have been able to observe first-hand the computer’s utter and complete subjugation of the world and its inhabitants—all during the relatively short span of my adulthood.

One fascinating aspect of the age of the computer is how programming languages have evolved. Of course, at first, a programmer had to be able to, more or less, directly manipulate the hardware elements of a computer. I can well recall having to try to decipher opaque Assembler routines, or (in the interest of severe RAM constraints—64k total on my first system) having to use BITON and BITOF commands in order to use one single byte field in such a way that it could serve as multiple indicators. I remember writing the main transaction entry program for a credit union with three branches. It had to permit up to 7 simultaneous users (with 7 unique instances of all the variables, of course) and still fit within the constraints of the 64k RAM limit. Oh, those were the days. You actually had to take into consideration the architecture and unique properties of the hardware. Nowadays, programmers really give no thought to things like that. You simply don’t have to. The system I work on now has 8 64-bit processors (upgradeable to 32), 64 Gigabytes of RAM (expandable to 8 Terabytes), and I’ve lost track of how many terabytes of disk drive space it has. Servers like this one can be linked in parallel to create stunningly capable supercomputers. IBM linked together 90 of them to make the Watson Supercomputer of Jeopardy fame. But even Watson only places 49th on a recent list of the world’s Top 50 Supercomputers.

With the astonishing increase, over the past quarter century, in processor speed, available RAM, and disk storage space, the nature of software and software development has changed rather dramatically. Programming languages have consistently become “higher level”—meaning essentially that the distance between the programming language and the nuts and bolts manipulation of the hardware elements has grown wider and wider. For the most part, programmers don’t really understand how the computer actually works. It’s simply not necessary. All they need to know is how to “speak” in a language that can be translated into a “dialect,” as it were, that the computer is capable of understanding. This translation is the function of a very particular kind of computer program called a “compiler.”

All computer programs must be “translated” via the “compiler” from what is called the “source code” to the actual binary “object code” that is loaded into a computer’s RAM when an application is launched. If you printed out the “source code” of an application, you would see that its structure and terminology are such that, for the most part, anyone could trace its logic flow. The “high-level” programming language is designed to be similar to actual human language. On the other hand, if you printed out the binary “object code” that the computer actually uses, it would be nothing but a long, incomprehensible string of ones and zeros; billions of on/off switches, one after another.

So what’s my point? Well, simply this:

From my perspective as a computer programmer, and as a believer in the doctrines of the restored gospel, the nature and structure of the modern computer is, in many ways, very analogous to my understanding of the nature and structure of man.

To wit:

• 
  
• The body of man is the “hardware” element.
  `
  
• The brain (or mind) of man is the “compiler,” or the thing that translates thought (“source code”) into signals/commands/etc. which activate and govern bodily functions.
  `
  
• The spirit of man is the conscious intelligence that creates the “source code.” It is the “source” of the creative spark; the intelligence that conceives the application—without which the brain and body would be nothing but a few pounds of water, salt, flesh, bone, and blood.
  

Of course, there are (similar to many such things in a computer) some things that are “pre-loaded” into the body: the autonomic nervous system, for example—systems and functions that act more or less independent of consciousness. That does not, in my estimation, detract whatsoever from the aptness of the analogy I propose, which is as follows:

Just as there are three distinct elements that make up a computer system, software/compiler/hardware, so are there also three distinct elements that make up the soul of man: spirit/mind/body.

Or so it seems to me.

I look forward to your ideas on the matter.

I was just thinking something similar today. I would consciously will a piece of trash into the bin across the room. To program something like that would be complicated, involving trigonometry and minute control of individual cells in productive groups and sub groups with precise timing, and yet i did no math that i was conscious of. Like the brain is a tool that enables my "consciousness" to accomplish things with the rest of my "hardware".

[etana]

I don't know about all that but you could be about right. It works with the idea of a friend of mine that says all life is, is just a college lab experiment anyway.

My life is more like a college dorm room refrigerator experiment.

[CV75]

• 
  
• The body of man is the “hardware” element.
  `
• The brain (or mind) of man is the “compiler,” or the thing that translates thought (“source code”) into signals/commands/etc. which activate and govern bodily functions.
  `
• The spirit of man is the conscious intelligence that creates the “source code.” It is the “source” of the creative spark; the intelligence that conceives the application—without which the brain and body would be nothing but a few pounds of water, salt, flesh, bone, and blood.
  

Very interesting! How about this tweak:

The brain and the body are the hardware.

The brain is also the compiler, translating will (“source code”) into thought.

God creates the hardware and the compiler based on input from the spirit. This input is the expression of the spirit’s agency (a function of its intelligence, or light and truth / mastery of eternal laws).

The input from the spirit of man provides the agency which creates (or organizes, frees-up) the “source code.”

The mind is both the brain and the spirit working in tandem inasmuch as their respective limitations permit in this world (a great "spirit-mind" in the spirit world may be limited by poorly functioning electronics, or "brain-mind" in this world).

Also shared in the spirit of incomplete and evolving thoughts.

Edited September 9, 2011 by CV75

[wenglund]

Hi Will,

In your analogy, who or what is operating the keyboard, mouse, joy stick, and other input devises when the software and hardware are running?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[etana]

Will, have you read Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind"? I think you'd enjoy it. It touches a little on computational models of consciousness, but i remember it mainly as an argument against the ability of current understanding of Physical disciplines to model the "explanatory gap" between consciousness and the machine we see. Anyway, it was 20 years ago and i got lost when he started with the mathematical arguments.

[asbestosman]

I'll be honest Will, I don't like the analogy. For one thing I see the brain as part of the hardware needed to execute any instructions. For another thing, our bodies die without our spirits, but the source code is no longer necessary once it has been compiled. Also, in many ways we function in a feedback loop where we modify the source code on-the-fly. This doesn't happen quite as frequently with compiled languages although it is possible both through hot-patching technology and through tricks like loading new dlls and unloading old ones, but only if the original code was designed with this in mind. If one wishes to preserve the analogy, he could insist that we install patches and then reboot at sleep time and there may be some truth to that. However, we also learn and change much while we are still awake.

Some analogies with potential include the pre-loaded stuff. Almost everyone who codes will have the code run on something with an operating system as well as special-purpose hardware which can perform certain tasks blazingly fast--such as graphics calculations.

If the brain is the interface between body and spirit, then I would think of it more as an interpreter than a compiler. Maybe it could be for language such as LISP, or if you prefer Javascript, Python, Ruby, or Perl. I have it on good authority that the Sons of Perdition use COBOL.

----------------

Will, have you read Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind"? I think you'd enjoy it. It touches a little on computational models of consciousness, but i remember it mainly as an argument against the ability of current understanding of Physical disciplines to model the "explanatory gap" between consciousness and the machine we see. Anyway, it was 20 years ago and i got lost when he started with the mathematical arguments.

I've read most of a it--a few times. Penrose's thesis there is that brains are not Turing machines because we understand things that computers cannot and formal mathematical systems cannot prove within themselves--namely Goedel's incompleteness theorems.

ETA: I like the book--Penrose is a great teacher and covers many interesting topics. I just disagree with his conclusion about Artificial Intelligence. I even like the sequel, but my favorite Penrose book is The Road to Reality.

Edited September 9, 2011 by asbestosman

[William Schryver]

asbestosman:

If the brain is the interface between body and spirit, then I would think of it more as an interpreter than a compiler.

For the purposes of this discussion, we shall regard "compiler" and "interpreter" as effectively equivalent terms.

I have been giving my analogy much thought since I posted yesterday, and I have several more things that I want to say that will expand upon my original idea. But doing so will have to wait until later today, because I must actually go through a compiler listing right now and systematically fix the errors in the source code for a big program I've been writing for the past two weeks, in order that I can get it to compile. So, perhaps later this afternoon I will be able to come back and comment further.

I will say this much right now: the human brain is obviously much more than just a compiler/interpreter. It has, for example, the capacity to configure and set aside portions of itself as a repository for data. Therefore it can be a storage device. I would probably argue that all of human brain storage is analogous to solid state, or "flash" storage. But every function of which the brain is capable is still primarily dependent on its capability to interpret commands from the source of creative intelligence. It is, as one person has already said, the interface between the spirit and the body of man. And what an interface it is!

More later ...

Edited September 9, 2011 by William Schryver

[Nofear]

Just as there are three distinct elements that make up a computer system, software/compiler/hardware, so are there also three distinct elements that make up the soul of man: spirit/mind/body.

Or so it seems to me.

I look forward to your ideas on the matter.

I think the model has some merits, but I might suggest the following adjustments:

Let's grant that there is some "mind" or "seat of consciousness" where all free-willed events originate. You propose this is the "spirit of man" but I don't think that can work. Let me explain. We have the three basic functions*:

1. We have the "body" which accepts raw inputs of sensory data from the external world.

2. We have the "brain" which compiles the raw sensory data (and memory) into an acceptable form for processing by the "mind"

3. We have the "mind" which then processes the brain-compiled data and sends back instruction for free-willed events

Before we had our physical body and we just had a spirit body, those same three functions still have to occur. The spirit body collects data from the spirit world. The "spirit brain" assembles it for processing by the "mind", the "seat of consciousness", the component of us which has always existed, will always exist, and cannot be part of any other identity.

What about our physical body? The raw sensory data presented by the physical body has to make it's way to the "mind" (I personally prefer "seat of consciousness" as the materialist in me is wary of any confusion with mind as some kind of immaterial substance a la Cartesian dualism). Does the physical body and the physical brain assemble the information and then send it to the spirit brain for processing before going to the seat of consciousness or can the physical brain directly access our "mind"? I'm personally not sure, but the memories stored in the physical brain are mirrored in the spirit brain (as evidenced by the fact that we remember our life after death). Or perhaps the physical brain's memory's are only "pointers"?

Suffice it to say, the model/analogy needs to give thought to the presence of our dual bodies and their ability to function independently of the other (or at least the spirit body without the physical body).

* This model, assumes, among other things, reductive physicalism. If one is willing to buy into strong emergence, then I suppose alternative chains could be imagined. Haven't thought about it since I'm strongly biased against strong emergence.

[asbestosman]

Or perhaps the physical brain's memory's are only "pointers"?

Maybe the connection between physical brain and spirit is RPC.

[Nofear]

Maybe the connection between physical brain and spirit is RPC.

The suggestion seems very plausible in the face of observations -- that we make our decisions (even several seconds) before we become consciously aware of them.

Nature News: Brain makes decisions before you even know it

While this observation has been somewhat distressing to free will advocates who subscribe to the idea of only one body/mind (e.g. monists), it is not necessarily a problem for Mormonism.

[asbestosman]

The suggestion seems very plausible in the face of observations -- that we make our decisions (even several seconds) before we become consciously aware of them.

Nature News: Brain makes decisions before you even know it

While this observation has been somewhat distressing to free will advocates who subscribe to the idea of only one body/mind (e.g. monists), it is not necessarily a problem for Mormonism.

The brain is very much a parallel processing machine. In fact it's so slow compared to microchips that the only reason we're smarter is that we have massive parallelism and very special subunits.

I suppose the question Mormons must ask is what is responsible for consciousness--spirit or brain? If spirit, then why can we lose consciousness through fatigue, drugs, or injury? If brain, why does the loss of spirit equal death, and why do our spirits still have our personalities and decision-making capabilities? If the brain is using RPC or pointers to communicate with the spirit, then why do natural chemical changes in the brain so drastically alter one's choices--were the choices made by the brain or the spirit? If by the spirit, can it be altered by hormones and drugs?

[CV75]

The brain is very much a parallel processing machine. In fact it's so slow compared to microchips that the only reason we're smarter is that we have massive parallelism and very special subunits.

I suppose the question Mormons must ask is what is responsible for consciousness--spirit or brain? If spirit, then why can we lose consciousness through fatigue, drugs, or injury? If brain, why does the loss of spirit equal death, and why do our spirits still have our personalities and decision-making capabilities? If the brain is using RPC or pointers to communicate with the spirit, then why do natural chemical changes in the brain so drastically alter one's choices--were the choices made by the brain or the spirit? If by the spirit, can it be altered by hormones and drugs?

I think they work in tandem with the license God grants each depending on the environment (world, glory, calling, etc.) in which they reside. In this world, this is reflected in the God-granted health and functioning of the body and brain and the “keys” or scope of action He grants the spirit. Both are usually a function of the spirit exercising its agency according to the laws God has put in place, but sometimes God intervenes.

Man is primarily defined as spirit (D&C 93:33). To possess awareness and perception in this world, I think the spirit needs a body and brain to interact in a non-spirit environment. It may be fully functioning on another level, but without the brain and body it is neutralized as far as its interaction in this world is concerned unless God permits him to act, for example, as a ministering spirit or otherwise communicate to mortals through their brains and bodies (dreams, their “quickening”, etc.).

So we can lose consciousness in two ways: 1) our bodies and brains are interrupted in their functioning to do so and 2) as a result, the spirit loses its functioning through a mortal body, but not in any other realm in which it is permitted to operate according to the laws set in place.

Because “man is spirit,” its life is experienced (it is aware and perceiving) only where that spirit is located. In this world, it is co-located with a functioning body and brain in order to perceive and be aware of this world. In the pre-mortal and spirit worlds, it has a personality and decision-making capacity even without the body.

Also because “man is spirit,” the manifestation of its personality and decisions are altered when located in a compromised body and brain. Fortunately God judges what choices the spirit has control over.

Edited September 9, 2011 by CV75

[Mansquatch]

There are countless ways that we could divide up the many facets of mortal living. All I know is, I would like a hardware upgrade.

[Nofear]

I suppose the question Mormons must ask is what is responsible for consciousness--spirit or brain?

==> post #1 (Schryver's initial take) and post #11 (Nofear's perspective)

If spirit, then why can we lose consciousness through fatigue, drugs, or injury?

See above (and extrapolate) or read CV75's very patient response (third paragraph).

PS: Please keep in mind that these speculations should not be construed as doctrinal at any level. Being believers, we design them to be consistent with our understanding of the doctrines, but they necessarily extend beyond them. Nor is the intended audience of these speculations those who do not subscribe to the truthfulness of Mormonism. That's not to say critics of the Church aren't welcome to comment but comments which operate within the framework of Mormonism are usually more useful to us (or at the very least me) in refining, expanding, or discarding the speculations.

[Robert F. Smith]

Man is primarily defined as spirit (D&C 93:33). To possess awareness and perception in this world, I think the spirit needs a body and brain to interact in a non-spirit environment. It may be fully functioning on another level, but without the brain and body it is neutralized as far as its interaction in this world is concerned unless God permits him to act, for example, as a ministering spirit or otherwise communicate to mortals through their brains and bodies (dreams, their “quickening”, etc.).

So we can lose consciousness in two ways: 1) our bodies and brains are interrupted in their functioning to do so and 2) as a result, the spirit loses its functioning through a mortal body, but not in any other realm in which it is permitted to operate according to the laws set in place.

Because “man is spirit,” its life is experienced (it is aware and perceiving) only where that spirit is located. In this world, it is co-located with a functioning body and brain in order to perceive and be aware of this world. In the pre-mortal and spirit worlds, it has a personality and decision-making capacity even without the body.

Also because “man is spirit,” the manifestation of its personality and decisions are altered when located in a compromised body and brain. Fortunately God judges what choices the spirit has control over.

It may very well be that this life is a state in which we are supposed to learn how to successfully meld our spiritual and the material bodies. That may explain the difficulty in separating the two when the effects of either are not fully in harness. Consider the activities of angels and of the risen Jesus in eating and walking with disciples, as well as walking through walls. That bespeaks the mastery we are to achieve at some point.

Meantime, the biological simulacrum which we call a "human body" has various material components, including an onboard computer, sensory devices, and an energy-conversion mechanism (we eat fuel, and burn it with the oxygen we breathe, while plants do something similar with photosynthesis). Underlying all of that as a reproductive and design system (or living blueprint) is DNA. "Intelligent design" is an understatement.

What is disquieting in all this is the assertion of Ray Kurzweil and others that we are due for a great "event horizon" (singularity) in the not too distant future, perhaps around 15 to 25 years from now. As a result of extending Moore's Law of the 18 month cycle of new generational development in computing (ever faster, more compact, and higher memory chips) on into the future, until artificial intelligence vastly exceeds the capacity of human intelligence. What happens then? For a summary of the issues, see this Wikipedia link, from which the following:

Ray Kurzweil,

The Singularity is Near

(Penguin, 2005), 135-136, himself says that "we will be producing about 10

26

to 10

29

cps of nonbiological computation per year in the early 2030s. This is roughly equal to our estimate for the capacity of all living biological human intelligence ... This state of computation in the early 2030s will not represent the Singularity, however, because it does not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence. By the mid-2040s, however, that one thousand dollars' worth of computation will be equal to 10

26

cps, so the intelligence created per year (at a total cost of about $10

12

) will be about one billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today. That

will

indeed represent a profound change, and it is for that reason that I set the date for the Singularity—representing a profound and disruptive transformation in human capability—as 2045."

At that point, what becomes of humanity? Will we even be necessary? After all, at that event horizon, given the development of carbon fiber and nanotechnology in chip-making, and given robotic production lines, humans will not be needed (and would just get in the way) for full production and improvement of computers -- including true androids tied in to the communal computing mind. Shades of Asimov's I, Robot, would such machines have souls?

Only our divine capacity and nature (apotheosis) can give us superiority at that point, far beyond anything a computer could be capable of. That is our true "Omega Point" -- with apologies to Teihard.

[TAO]

There is one problem with the analogy that I am a bit iffy about. The spirit/intelligence doesn't leave the body upon completion of it's creation. Most of the time, in coding, you make occasional updates, but you aren't updating all the time, and eventually you stop.

I would say that the intelligence, and/or spirit is not the creator of the source code, but the manipulator of the source code. It is still working on the final goal, or outcome, constantly making things more efficient. If they make a mistake (sin), the code becomes less efficient, and more likely to come up with an error. So the intelligence would be the one modifying the source code, using some pre-made libraries, trying to make things work better, in a sense.

Edited September 10, 2011 by TAO

[CV75]

At that point, what becomes of humanity? Will we even be necessary? After all, at that event horizon, given the development of carbon fiber and nanotechnology in chip-making, and given robotic production lines, humans will not be needed (and would just get in the way) for full production and improvement of computers -- including true androids tied in to the communal computing mind. Shades of Asimov's I, Robot, would such machines have souls?

Only our divine capacity and nature (apotheosis) can give us superiority at that point, far beyond anything a computer could be capable of. That is our true "Omega Point" -- with apologies to Teihard.

Thank you for this very great example of why humanity needs the Savior. So many things are more capable in their sphere than man. Man can no more survive an advanced A.I. environment than he can a minnow’s. Human capacity can be so weak, but thankfully it is not artificial (ever “learning” without coming to the Truth)!

Edited September 10, 2011 by CV75

[William Schryver]

It may very well be that this life is a state in which we are supposed to learn how to successfully meld our spiritual and the material bodies.

I'm not sure that I believe the word "meld" is the best descriptor ... but I concur with what I perceive to be your basic idea here. I would only add that I believe the body we have received in this life is extremely rudimentary, even downright primitive in comparison to the bodies possessed by those of whom it could be said "they are gods." Therefore, part of the test of this life is to see how we will use our agency in relation to the tabernacle we are being permitted to lease for the short duration of our lives.

All of eternity depends on how we employ our bodies in this life.

We are informed that all who have lived will eventually be resurrected; the spirits of every man and woman who has lived will eventually be coupled with a perfect and immortal body, never to be separated again. However, we are also given to understand that there will be a vast difference in the "glory" of the bodies we may receive in the resurrection. One who has permitted the will of his spirit to be entirely subjected to the will of his mortal flesh will, in the resurrection, receive a model of body whose specifications ("glory") are described as "telestial."

Those who attain unto a certain mastery of the flesh by their spirits, but who are not willing to receive and abide by the laws of the gospel of Jesus Christ, will receive a model of body whose specifications are described as "terrestrial."

Those who receive and abide by the laws of the gospel of Jesus Christ will receive a body whose specifications are described as "celestial." The respective models are said to be typified, in terms of their relative capacities, or "glory," by the stars, the moon, and the sun. With that in mind, I would argue that even the difference between a Commodore 64 and the IBM Watson super-computer is not as great as the difference I perceive between the stars of the night sky and the sun at midday. As one who has always desired to have the latest, most advanced model of computer and other electronic gadgetry, I am certain that I could never be content, in the resurrection, with anything less than a body celestial.

Anyway, I continue to ponder the analogy between modern computer systems and the body/mind/spirit of man. I'm not quite ready to expand further on the thoughts I presented in the opening post, but I do appreciate the comments that have been made so far. The more I contemplate these things, the more persuaded I am that the human brain is, indeed, the interface mechanism between the spirit and the flesh. I will continue to explore this idea for the next few days, and trust that I will have something more to say about it.

.

.

.

Nofear:

... perhaps the physical brain's memory's are only "pointers"?

I think this is actually a very cogent observation. I think you are very likely correct--at least in terms of the basic concept of a "pointer."

For those not familiar with this computer programming term, permit me to present a quick primer, followed by a brief explanation of why Nofear's idea is compelling in terms of the relationship between the physical brain of man and his spirit:

"Pointer" is a term that describes a variable that contains not an actual value, but rather the address (in either RAM or on the physical storage device) where the value is located. One possible analogy that occurs to me is the difference between an actual book on the shelf, and its corresponding reference card in the old card catalog file at the local library.

In a computer program, a good programmer is always trying to code things so that they run economically, using the least possible amount of RAM and processor power. So, for example, if your program receives a social security number from an input device, and is requested to pass back to the caller the name of the person associated with that SSN, it can either retrieve the name from the appropriate file and pass it back as a character field, or it can simply retrieve the address of the place on disk where the name is stored, and then pass back the address to the caller. Therefore, instead of passing back a character field containing the name, it passes back instead a much smaller numeric field containing the address of where the name is currently being stored. It’s the same as the difference between the Dewey Decimal Classification of a library book and the actual contents of the book itself. In terms of computer programming, the use of pointers is extremely economical. Pointers can refer not just to character variables like a person’s name, but can be used to pass addresses for huge complex objects. For example, when you open an Explorer window and display the contents of a folder containing your favorite pirated videos, and then double-click on the video you want to watch, the operating system software simply retrieves the address (“pointer”) of the video file and passes it to your default media player, which then uses that address to locate the video file, and play it for you.*

In terms of the relationship between the brain and spirit, I think it is quite reasonable to posit that the brain itself only stores “pointers” to data (knowledge, memories, etc.) whose actual storage location is within the spirit of the individual. This would explain how the spirit is able to retain all of its accumulated data even if the brain is damaged or destroyed. The spirit of man is eternal. The human brain is merely the interface mechanism between that spirit and the physical tabernacle it is being permitted to temporarily inhabit during this life. Data originating in our premortal existence is temporarily “protected” or otherwise inaccessible to our mortal brains, but it is not lost, and access to it will one day be restored to each of us.

More later …

* = You might find it interesting to know that, typically, files are not stored contiguously on your disk drive, but could very well be in tens, or even hundreds of little pieces, scattered in various locations on the disk. When the end of one piece is reached, it contains a pointer to the next piece, and so on and so forth, until the last piece of the file is reached.