On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 3:22:57 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
> I agree. I'm an advocate of the engineering solution to the "hard > problem of consciousness". When we can build AI's that act intelligently > and explain their conscious thoughts and we can adjust them so that they > are more or less humorous or optimistic v. pessimstic or intuitive v. > contemplative, etc...then we will have understood as much as there is to > understand about consciousness. > It's true that e.g. classical mechanics asserts F = ma independently of discussions that concern topics of truth, consciousness, etc. Most of science, including large parts of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology etc. don't need more than an implicit notion of truth, where if I were to say F = m/a in newtonian contexts, you'd be able to say "false". Yet, if for arguments sake, we pursued your proposed engineering solution to the hard problem ignoring philosophy (contradictory, as that IS philosophical already), and were actually able to build the most humorous AI that inherited our taste for resource and power acquisition by any means in all directions, it would take over the world and that would be the funniest thing ever, until it had completed its task. With technologies becoming more powerful extensions of ourselves and our wants, aside from e.g. survival situations like pandemics, wars, etc. it's more relevant than ever to abstain from just building things brainlessly, without examining our wants, the assumed place and purpose of a technology in our commons, and their relationship to what/how that technology will be applied. PGC -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0998333b-ebc2-4c3d-9ad5-bfeb38364d13n%40googlegroups.com.
