Based on what evidence do you make the claim that the central nervous system is not a computer. From neural systems down to neurons and synapses and even down to the level of cell membranes and biochemistry, all are computational. What is your evidence that non-algorithmic processes occur in the CNS?

The only theory thus far put forth by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff is that non-computational quantum mechanical events at the level of microtubules influence synaptic intercommunication. To date, this has never been proven and is not widely accepted in the neuroscience community.

A complex system that is taught does not negate computation. Computation based on parallel distributed processing allows a machine to learn. Here's an example of an artificial neural network capable of learning to recognize faces:

http://www.informedia.cs.cmu.edu/documents/rowley-ieee.pdf

Based on the last statement, it sounds anti-reductionist and anti-materialist to me. Mind is the result of brain activity which is ultimately the result of basic chemistry and then downwards to physics. If human thought is therefore non-computational, then are you saying there is a spook or ghost in the machine?

Mentats?

Kap - please note the definition includes logical operations - which your brain is doing constantly.  Please see your own posts for examples of logical operations.  No matter how hard you try, you can not communicate without using logical operations.

This is not to say that you are always logical in the sense of being ordered in your thinking.  It is logical in the sense of computation - True+True=True.  And so on.  Do I press this key or that?  Is this a word, is the grammar correct, does the sentence make sense?  These are all logical operations.  Does your head itch?  Do you scratch it?  Logical operations. 

Do I believe people are organic robots?  No, in the sense that people are much more complex than the most complex robot existent.  Yes, in the sense that our emotions and thoughts are embedded in an organic matrix that includes a neural network, organic chemistry and the physics of energy and thermodynamics. 

Does this mean we are deterministic?  No.  Kap, you know your body and mind is driven by your chemistry, you have to deal with it constantly.  But that doesn't mean you don't make an effort to manage your chemistry.  And seems to me you do a pretty good job of it.  We all sit on a fence, balancing chemistry and old psych tapes and new experiences in our lives.  We can either allow our programming to direct our lives or we can do our best to go in new directions.  We aren't robots but we can't ignore that organic matrix either.

CJ - sitting on the fence as usual.

Sitting on fences is irrelevant. Playing "devil's advocate" (which is what you appear to be doing) isn't so irrelevant, but it still helps to come prepared.

You forgot to use bugspray

Bah. Paisley plays semantic games. His arguments are rhetorical. "Oh, you can't deny the consciousness, or we're just robots who behave as humans." But then ask him to define "consciousness," and he starts weaseling. "It's qualia," and bullshit like that.

We are just organic robots. We are all part of a chemical process that started over 4 billion years ago. That's it. That's all.

Granted, it's a pretty fucking complex chemical reaction.

Paisley's arguments always beg the question. He likes to hide dualism in terms like "consciousness." But it doesn't matter -- there is no distinction between a human and an organic robot that is chemically identical to a human. (Here, I don't just mean the same proportions of elements, but that the atoms are arranged in such a way as to be indistinguishable from a member of the set 'human.')

The lack of real distinction between "consciousness" and "sentient robot" was addressed by Daniel Dennett a long time ago.

Paisley's entire argument rests on his assertion that there's something special about consciousness. What that "special" thing is, he can't really say, though he pretends to be quite knowledgeable. In the end, he ends up with question-begging arguments about the dual nature of mind and brain, with no evidence to support those assertions. He's left with rhetorical assertions about how he's not a robot. When confronted with actual, you know, evidence, Paisley engages in sophistry and equivocation.

While Paisley himself appears to be quite intelligent, his arguments are stupid. And there's nothing more frustrating than arguing with an intelligent person tenaciously defending a stupid position.

EDIT: changed "element of the set 'human'" to "member of the set 'human,'" for the sake of clarity.

It depends on your definition of robot.

Paisley just tries to play on an emotional angle by using phrases that make his ilk recoil.  The only reason he even brings it up is that calling someone a soulless automaton is disturbing to a theist who has wrapped themselves up in the comforting blanket of an eternal soul that will gain an eternity of bliss by utilizing their 'free will' in a specific way.

As usual, his argument falls flat against someone who does not indulge in his flawed base level assumptions.

A more evolved definition of 'robot' is required. Clearly all organic life is not like the appliance from Lost in Space. I guess human ability to perceive our state and to manipulate our basic instincts constitutes an overlay on the brain's auto responses - though you'd assume this balancing act still depends on the same signalling infrastructure as that of simpler organisms and really just represents a more advanced ability to respond to our environment.

It's a pretty broad definition, but then, there are a lot of different kinds of robot.

Industrial:

Cool website, http://www.eurobots.net/ I hadn't thought about being able to buy used industrial robots.

Toy, gaming, and film robots:

Japanese robots:

But I think the sticking point in the definition is "machine".  It is a big stretch to call an organic entity a machine in any sense of common usage.

Well, I have no huge problem with life being robotic just as long as we have some kind of agreement on what that even means. The big thing being that we understand just what level of complexity we are talking about.

Obviously, men are not prokaryotes. However, some prokaryotes have been found that show very simple behaviors which could well have been programmed in on a genetic level. Pretty much they are going to depend on just how the proteins they are made of interact. So a bacterium that can “sniff out” chemical signatures of whatever they like to eat is going to be selected for over one that is not so good at finding food.

So if one hunts by taking a chemical sniff of the surroundings, rotates 30 degrees and move a bit further before repeating the process, well, that is good enough for single point triangulation. And if it builds proteins that facilitate the 30 degree turn, well, that could be seen as somewhat close to a machine as we tend to think of machines.

On the other hand, humans weigh a few billion times what a bacterium does and we have had lots of time evolving into the places that we have evolved into. By any reasonable measure, we are quite good at doing the things that we need to do to get by in the environment where we evolved.

So let's just say that men are robots of a sort. What does that really mean? If by robot you mean something that is fantastically more complex than the machines that assemble cars, then yes, we can be robots. On the other hand, one could ask if robots are men. Again, if the comparison is that which assembles cars, then no, not even close.

Interesting that the next topic showing for me is The Singularity is Near.

When computers exceed human intelligence and robotics are capable of superhuman feats of dexterity, speed, and strength (and realism, for that matter), I think these questions will be far, far more difficult to answer.

I know people who are just like this.