. A stroke, for example, is a purely hardware problem. In more general terms, hardware = brain and software = mind.
I don’t think this is a meaningful distinction for people. People can (and often do) have personality changes (and other changes of ‘mind’) after a stroke.
I don’t think this is a meaningful distinction for people.
You don’t think it’s meaningful to model people as having a hardware layer and a software layer? Why?
People can (and often do) have personality changes (and other changes of ‘mind’) after a stroke.
Why are you surprised that changes (e.g. failures) in hardware affect the software? That seems to be the way these things work, both in biological brains and in digital devices. In fact, humans are unusual in that for them the causality goes both ways: software can and does affect the hardware, too. But hardware affects the software in pretty much every situation where it makes sense to speak of hardware and software.
I don’t think this is a meaningful distinction for people. People can (and often do) have personality changes (and other changes of ‘mind’) after a stroke.
You don’t think it’s meaningful to model people as having a hardware layer and a software layer? Why?
Why are you surprised that changes (e.g. failures) in hardware affect the software? That seems to be the way these things work, both in biological brains and in digital devices. In fact, humans are unusual in that for them the causality goes both ways: software can and does affect the hardware, too. But hardware affects the software in pretty much every situation where it makes sense to speak of hardware and software.