AW: [aiethics] What are humans made of?

[Christian DroЯmann]

Alicebot AI Ethics Committee - http://www.alicebot.org


Pedro wrote:

> I think we've some sort of computing device in our brains and
> therefore it MUST be a Turing machine of some sort (even
> if there are strong arguments against that such as Roger
> Penrose et. al.).

Do you also subscribe to the point of view that Hardware <-> Software =
=
Brain <-> Mind ?

> It's likely that some of our brain process fells into the the
> domain of quantum mechanics and if so we could be ruled
> by the Heinsenberg's principle limits to directly observe
> what is going on.

maybe this will be clearer to see once the first working quantum =
computer is
built...

> It's highly suspicious we (humans) resort to things like religion
> on circular arguments that doesn't seem computable; perhaps
> a fancy and convoluted way to say "could not compute that"
> that keep our self-esteem at adequate levels and avoid us to
> be on a perennial neurotic state; or to consume all our
> computational resources feeding the loop.

That's also my point of view...IMHO whenever people found something they
couldn't explain they made up an explanation...and the picture of an
almighty and all-knowing being made their life a lot easier...
It's sad, but still many people rather believe in something as =
far-fetched
as a religion or other supernatural beliefs than simply admitting their
inability to explain certain things...

> However, nothing guarantees that the understanding of our
> particular Turing Machine could be done by us; Godel's
> theorem suggest that we could not conclusively say yes or
> not at this point.

I think the main problem lies in the common refusal to let go of =
something
that has become so dear over time...
People (scientists especially) tend to bend reality until it fits the =
model
they made up...instead of discarding the model once it obvious that it =
is
incorrect...
I am almost 100% convinced that our inability to explain how the brain =
works
is not entirely caused by our still great lack of certain knowledge, but
also because scientists tend to hang on to the models and equations that
worked so well when they had to explain simpler things...the brain and =
how
it works might be the one exception to the rule they all never thought =
of,
but because the models worked to explain everything else before, the =
brain
must in their eyes function according to them as well...

> Still, nothing should prevent us to be like the classical rabbit
> example used to teach calculus, this that travels at each
> time interval half the distance than in the previous time
> interval. Mathmaticians would say that it will never reach the carrot,
> and Engineers would say that it will become close enough
> for all practical purposes. So perhaps it's irrelevant whether
> we could or not fully understand ourselves, perhaps close
> enough is enough.

then I must be an Engineer...I also never understood why a definition =
says
that two parallel lines will touch each other in infinity...
I can also live with the fact that I cannot explain everything...I can =
live
with the limitations of being human...so I'd say close enough is =
enough...

Christian