> > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > Regarding Nagel, having just read the NYTimes article. > <snip> > > We are on the threshold of a robotics revolution. Can a robot > > be conscious? > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Is there something it is like to be a robot? Or would a > robot that could perfectly mimic a human being (or any > other creature) be a zombie, lacking inner first-person > experience? > > > It seems to me Nagel is trying to find an alternative to > > a theological argument without having to admit that it is > > simply a theological argument. > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > It's not a theological argument. It's an alternative he > says a believer might accept, but as far as he's concerned > it can be understood as a "naturalistic, but non-materialist, > alternative." > > > The problem with any metaphysical argument is it is simply > > virtual, there is no way to *demonstrate* its truth. A > > metaphysical argument remains out of the range of direct > > experience and so remains always a mere belief however > > vigorously held. > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Same with mathematics. > > > Scientific arguments are demonstrable within our experience, > > but inductive arguments are always logically fallacious, > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Explain that, please. I don't believe that's the case. > > Nagel's thesis, FWIW, is that it is impossible *in principle* > for the physical sciences to account for subjective, first- > person experience--what it is like to be a particular human > being, for example--and he makes that argument in the book > (albeit not in his NYTimes article). >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/mind-reading-tech-reconstructs-videos-brain-images https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011 Science is fast approaching that capability. We will be able to do it is another 15 years time. Nature doesn't "think" and design. Nature is more like an Umpire in a game. It throws a wide range of mutations into the envionment and lets the environment decide which survives. The process is wasteful, but works. This is why the casuality rate is so high in evolution. The extinction rate is so high that many evolutioary biologists state that extinction is a natural process of evolution. Only when species become extinct, new species evolve to fill in those ecological niches. 'Golden mean', 'fibonacci sequence', 'balance between order and chaos', 'symmetry', are all essentially mathematical abstracts and still doesn't contradict Darwin in any way. Nature functions more like an Umpire and not as a mother or dictator or santa claus etc.
