On 5/1/2013 7:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What would
>constitute a solution to the "hard problem" that could be tested? I think
>the best we will be able to do is to understand human brains to the point
>that we can manipulate thoughts and emotions as reported by subjects and we
>can make AI robots that behave like humans and whose "character" we can
>design as desired. When we've done that we'll "bet" (as Bruno would say)
>that we've solved the problem.
This last step is the one that I revolt against. I am all for AI
robots that behave like humans -- or better yet, do all of the nasty
work for us. Or that appear emotional enough to provide companionship
to lonely people. All of this is great. But why bet that we solved the
consciousness problem then?
Why bet that other people are conscious?
Of course the real reason is that we're hardwired by evolution to make that bet.
Brent
I don't see how the two things are
related. The reason this is forced down our throats is that it is now
blasphemy to suggest that Science is not the be-all and end-all of
intelectual inquiry. It is possible to love and practice Science and
reject this sort of dogma at the same time.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
