The Implications of Characteral BuildUp and Computers

I like to think that of all things I can do, one of the things I do well is think. Another bubble of arrogance, perhaps, but I prefer to think of it as a quiet confidence in one's self which is necessary to dismiss troubling pieces of self-doubt which would otherwise irritatingly hinder one's own development in the area by convincing yourself you are incapable of doing what you are doing. This can be leashed from fully fledged arrogance by simply not advertising that you have considered this (I am aware of the irony here, but I stand by the notion that I never made Muted Musings to actually be read, so don't see why I shouldn't be able to treat it as such), allowing the removal of such barriers without the ensuing character degradation.

In the case of thinking, I see the mind as a pool in which the thinker can swim freely. The human mind, its undoubtedly infinite limitations we are simply unaware of at this stage aside, is so vast and complicated that being inside it is almost impossible to appreciate the staggering complexity of nearly everything you think. This next sentence was going to be a list of all the things the mind could do off of the top of my head, but there's simply too many. There's something like six examples in that mini-scenario alone! Planning into the future, ordering things into a list, categorising things, identifying things, communicating a concept, foreseeing a possible problem, taking measures to ensure this problem doesn't come to pass, retrospectively analysing one's own actions, all within those two sentences of text. And that's just the tip of the iceberg! (There's another one; understanding concepts via a metaphor likening it to something more easily understandable). The mind is capable of such a blindingly diverse myriad of functions it puts super-computers to shame! It is said a machine can only be as intelligent as its creator. It is also said that this is not so because computers we create can perform so many functions so quickly. Balls to that, we couldn't possibly make a machine as intelligent as the few pounds of grey goo encased in our heads. Not only does it monitor an entire multicellular organism, changing conditions within said organism to ensure survival, not only does it allow the organism a vast biological computer to use at its own whim, not only does it subconciously record data, directing actions and thoughts without any control from the user to better the user's chance of survival, not only this, but it allows the creation of character. That is something I can't understand. I don't deny the possibility for the creation of a computer which could monitor the same number of inputs the brain does, and control a variety of outputs accordingly to maintain a figure, I'm certain a computer could at least mimic thoughts to the point that it could allow a manipulator the same amount of freedom of thought as the user's own brain, I'm fairly sure a computer can record a number of preprogrammed factors and impose laws on itself to prevent certain known "bad" factors to come to pass, simulating subconcious learning, but I know that no computer can develop character (on a similar note, no computer we have at the moment can do all of the above whilst weighing a few pounds and fitting snugly inside the human skull).

Why? What makes character so unreproducable? It is merely a collection of factors, when broken down to component parts, however infinitely complex these components may be and how diverse their relationships with each other may end up revealing themselves to be. I don't understand the concept. This, in itself, is a representation of the brain's own irony. Why does it do all these things, but one of the most crucial of them; thought and self-awareness, is incapable of understanding its own inner workings innately? Surely it should make perfect sense to us? A computer works by running through its own programming, but our programming being shown to us is just a grey, bloody mess. I feel that this simply because I am not quite looking at the topic the right way.

Logic tells me that if I were to state all the aspects I know to be true, and grind them down to the subsequent deductions which must be true because of these, then the ones which are present numerous times are more likely to be true. It is a flawed method, due to a restriction of information and an inability to process all feasible deductions of every piece of confirmed information, but should at least offer a clearer perspective of what I think. First, it seems prudent to list the relevant things I consider to be facts on the matter, and explain them each in turn.

• Each person's character is entirely unique to them. Similar characters may exist, but each is varied as snowflakes or fingerprints. This should mean that the factors in their creation are so infinitely varied, they cannot ever be reproduced perfectly, but at the same time factors are common enough to allow certain characteristics to develop in similar ways.
  
• A person's character drives to identify itself by attaching itself to unique concepts (or at least concepts unique to the group of people commonly interacted with). For want of a better example, names are a good concept of this (or more personally, my obsession with green likely stems from a desire to be unique. This is shown that if someone else were to claim a fanatical obsession with green, I would likely be irritated by it.)
• A character values both friendships and enemies. A character will always be drawn to other characters which "match". If not because they are similar, then because they work together. If one character fuels itself on attention, then it would compete with a like-minded one, and a divide would exist, but a character which gains pleasure by paying attention to another would work well with them. Despite clashes of character existing, they seem to fulfill a "Nemesis" hole in most people's minds. Although most probably wouldn't admit it, out of shame, denial or merely misunderstanding what I mean, most people (I cringe to use the term everyone, because I can think of people who simply don't exhibit what I'm thinking of, but I'm fairly certain the concept exists in their head anyway) seem to feel the need to identify another person, or character, as a Nemesis. Be it a test of strength, a clash of principles or a matter of upbringing, people like to have other people to test themselves against. It may be to prove a identifying aspect of their character, touched upon briefly earlier in each character's constant strive to identify itself as unique, or simply eliminate that which seems naturally incorrect to them is unimportant; it is a universally present theme in the psyche.

I'm becoming irritated. Although I've a clearer image of characters as a concept, I cannot derive from these musings the nature of a character's creation. Although it pains me to say it, I may have to explore more archaic theories. It is often commented that people are merely the summation of their own life experiences up to that point. For the most part, I agree to this theory. It makes perfect sense, and can be usefully applied to life, with some degree of reliability. All the same, it doesn't quite help differentiate computers from a person. Surely any computer with the capacity to record past events and edit its own programming accordingly, will develop a character? Everything else is just a matter of proportions. This is a slightly scary thought, because that doesn't seem infeasible by todays technological prowess. And if it's at least mildly possible now, that must mean it's improvable, which is even scarier.