On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 12:57:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > 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. >
Are we hardwired by evolution to question that bet also? Craig > > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
