Are we programmed beings?

May 2011
884
1
Marble, N.C.
We believe our parents and most of what people say when we are growing up. Then we learn to make up our own mind. I see and believe sometimes without rational thought just because it makes (sense logic reasonable understanding) to me. Things are not all they seem to be in our world, we learn that as we grow older.

What makes sense to you might not to me and vice versa. We have all heard (I can't believe that). At that point do we not want to believe that because it goes against our strong belief in that?

I want to believe in common sense logic reason to a point of absolute (wont doubt or question) this or that belief. Why are we programmed to belief this or that? pljames
 
Sep 2009
87
0
"Why are we programmed to belief this or that?"

To maintain order
To reduce disorder
To maintain a sense (feeling) of control / power over.

I say it is a control thing and it is based on fear... fear of the unknown, fear of the unpredictable .

Safety, security

Also change creates anxiety there for to avoid anxiety. Changing belief systems is a threat to security.

Then there is the identification with beliefs as in the belief serves as a self and with out the belief self (existence) is threatened.
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
"Are we programmed beings?" We are 'programable"; wait till your recognize how you "unwittingly programme" yourself everyday and also use prior programmes.

Try this, you might 'like' it.
Pavlov conditioned dogs to involuntarily react to the sound of a bell by salivating, every time he rang the bell. Do you believe that?
You are conditioned to involuntarily react to your believed images. Do you belive that?
Think of a image that disturbs/distresses you. WHILE experiencing the emotion say; "These emotions are my version of Pavlovian dogs salivating."
Keep thinking your image and saying the affirmation till the image no longer evokes emotions. ( let us know if you succeeded neutralizing that image)
(If you laugh while doing this 'process', indicates your involuntary is "getting" the message. If you laugh because you believe this is bull-shit, at least you got a free laugh.)You are in fact reacting to your image that this is B.S. Gotchya.
 
Jun 2009
531
0
Humans are not programmable in any meaningful sense of the word. 'Programming' implies direct top-down control of the 'program,' and while humans can be persuaded and influenced, that's not the same as being programmed - programming implies a much higher level of determinism. If humans were programmable, they would always respond to a stimuli in exactly the way they were programmed to by their programmer, which is obviously not the case for anyone.

Rather, humans are learning beings. They don't respond to stimuli in a predetermined way, but are equipped with tools to respond to novel stimuli, or respond to old stimuli in novel ways.
 
Sep 2012
59
0
Here, Now
[quote author=voodoo scientist link=topic=2130.msg15630#msg15630 date=1309424113]
Humans are not programmable in any meaningful sense of the word.
[/quote]

Is it safe to assume you're not a programmer?

'Programming' implies direct top-down control of the 'program,'
How does programming imply that? To me, (as a programmer) programming implies something quite different, specifically that there's some kind of system (hardware) which does things according to a series of instructions stored in it's memory (software).

Humans are meaningfully similar: we have wetware does things according to a networked set of instructions stored in our memories. (Now that I think about it, this thread should be in Cognitive Psychology because this computer metaphor is often spoken about in that field.)

and while humans can be persuaded and influenced, -- that's not the same as being programmed -
Quite true, but all you've managed to say is that Social Psychology isn't Cognitive Psychology, not that Cognitive Psychology is invalid.

programming implies a much higher level of determinism.
How?

If humans were programmable, they would always respond to a stimuli in exactly the way they were programmed to by their programmer, which is obviously not the case for anyone. Rather, humans are learning beings. They don't respond to stimuli in a predetermined way, but are equipped with tools to respond to novel stimuli, or respond to old stimuli in novel ways.
If a system performs any actions based on information stored in it's memory and in it's registers, it has preformed exactly in the only way it is capable whether the software was intentionally written by a programmer or beaten into it by the environment.

The main difference between how a computer works and the human brain works is how instructions transfer from memory to be processed by the hardware.

A computer picks them out from memory in an more or less orderly linear fashion, while the wetware of the human brain acts based on the total sum of the level of activation of all the nodes of it's memory. This makes it no less rigidly predetermined than a computer (as 2 + 2 will always equal 4), so long as the exact same stimuli is coming in with the same state of activation already present in the nodes, with the same connections between them.

Or, at least, that's the general view of neuroscicentists.
 
Sep 2012
2
0
I certainly think that we are programmable. Isn't that pretty much what habits are? Don't we "train" ourselves to act a certain way to some circumstances and another way to other circumstances. It may not involve formulas or a specific language, but it's still programming.

There's a website that talks a lot about using this concept to escape all the hassle and pain that many suffer from repeated negative thinking.

Take a look.

findingpersonalpeace.com (copy and paste into your browser)

Wishing you all the best!
 
Feb 2011
1,196
1
USA
lookingforpease? :please correct that site, I could not get there from what you wrote.
You wrote we "train" ourselves to act a certain way.....etc". People with stage fright, for example did not 'purposely' 'train' to fear public speaking. I'm about such 'habits' being conditioned without choice; and about 'undoing' them. So I want to check-out the site you suggest.
 
Jun 2009
531
0
[quote author=Shawn2 link=topic=2130.msg21668#msg21668 date=1347959023]
Is it safe to assume you're not a programmer?[/quote]

It is never safe to assume that I am wrong.

[quote author=Shawn2 link=topic=2130.msg21668#msg21668]How does programming imply that? To me, (as a programmer) programming implies something quite different, specifically that there's some kind of system (hardware) which does things according to a series of instructions stored in it's memory (software).[/quote]

That is what top-down information processing means. This is not what either the brain or mind does. I take it that it's safe to assume you are not a psychologist?

[quote author=Shawn2 link=topic=2130.msg21668#msg21668 date=1347959023]Humans are meaningfully similar: we have wetware does things according to a networked set of instructions stored in our memories. (Now that I think about it, this thread should be in Cognitive Psychology because this computer metaphor is often spoken about in that field.)

[...]

Quite true, but all you've managed to say is that Social Psychology isn't Cognitive Psychology, not that Cognitive Psychology is invalid.

[...]

How?

[...]

If a system performs any actions based on information stored in it's memory and in it's registers, it has preformed exactly in the only way it is capable whether the software was intentionally written by a programmer or beaten into it by the environment.

The main difference between how a computer works and the human brain works is how instructions transfer from memory to be processed by the hardware.

A computer picks them out from memory in an more or less orderly linear fashion, while the wetware of the human brain acts based on the total sum of the level of activation of all the nodes of it's memory. This makes it no less rigidly predetermined than a computer (as 2 + 2 will always equal 4), so long as the exact same stimuli is coming in with the same state of activation already present in the nodes, with the same connections between them.

Or, at least, that's the general view of neuroscicentists.
[/quote]

The error lies in the belief that the brain corresponds to hardware under the control of software corresponding to the mind. This is incorrect, and not at all congruent with post-1990 neuroscience (e.g. Sporn, 2008). The mind is not software, the brain is not hardware, and none of the above conclusions have ground to stand on without those obsolete assumptions. As a programmer, one should be especially critical of the position that anything which is not a literal computer is analogous to a computer.

If one wants to expand the notion of computation beyond the standard usage in scientific psychology (i.e. as an information processor in the Shannon sense), one ought to be specific about this. It is not correct to say that the mind is a computer in the standard Church-Turing sense of the term, and in practice it is very difficult to interpret the mind in terms of a Shannon information processor. Some schools of psychology are attempting to do so anyway (ecological psychology and maybe Gibsonian psychology come to mind), but they are constrained by the practical difficulties of experimentally testing the mind as a continuous dynamic system, and none of them are proposing that people are programmable - quite the opposite.
 
Feb 2020
13
0
US
Humans are not programmable in any meaningful sense of the word. 'Programming' implies direct top-down control of the 'program,' and while humans can be persuaded and influenced, that's not the same as being programmed - programming implies a much higher level of determinism. If humans were programmable, they would always respond to a stimuli in exactly the way they were programmed to by their programmer, which is obviously not the case for anyone.
I spent a part of each work day while an employee of the State Dept. of Mental Health during the mid to late 1970's receiving in-service training in Behavior Modification and Behavior Management to become a Programmer. The techniques we used were intended to decrease the frequency of a target behavior in one of any number of increasingly difficult objectives to be met with the intended goal of extinguishing said behavior, and what the Dept. of Mental Health considered to be Programming.


Rather, humans are learning beings. They don't respond to stimuli in a predetermined way, but are equipped with tools to respond to novel stimuli, or respond to old stimuli in novel ways.
I assure you that you would react in the same manner each time I applied the technique, as it involved induction of pain through physical or psychological stimuli, and you couldn't get away from me or stop me from carrying it out every time you exhibited the target behavior till my shift ended. Then another Programmer took my place at your side to address the target behavior in the exact same manner I had used the previous 8 hours.

That took place from the time you woke up till you went to bed, day in/day out, till the objective had been met or a lack of progress in achieving success at the objective was identified. Then a meeting would be held and an alternative technique deemed more appropriate due to lack of progress agreed upon and the programming continued till the objectives were all met and the goal achieved. Or the Programming was considered to have been ineffective and the target behavior re-evaluated.


You might not have been familiar with it, and that's understandable. Behavior Modification was banned from use in any State facility or Group Home a few years later in the early 1980's. If you used any of the same physical or verbal techniques on a client from that point on you were hauled up in front of a State Board of Inquiry on allegations of abuse.

By the late 80's and early 90's I was working as Home Manager of a Group Home for Behaviorally Involved individuals and guess who was regularly asked to sit on those Boards that had used State approved techniques probably as bad or worse than what you were currently being investigated for.

Don't bother to ask about the techniques we used. That's quite enough as it is.
 
Last edited: