Re NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Ed Gerck, Ph.D." <egerck () gmail com>
> Date: June 11, 2018 at 10:15:09 AM PDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
>
> Dear Dave and list,
>
> We are working on this theme, and contributions are welcome for a potential participation. Our initial results are 
> given below, and there is also a Question in ResearchGate, and a Project group, in addition to a LinkedIn article, 
> all to help collect participation.
> Reference: From Molecules to Mind: CAN MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS BE UNDERSTOOD USING NATURAL SCIENCE?
>
> If any process in the brain can be described in natural science terms, what is mind, what is consciousness? What 
> would become, in consciousness terms, Artificial Intelligence?
>
> Biology, in the form of botany, asked a question that physics could eventually answer, but only after 80 years of 
> intense work was the Brownian movement explained. We can imagine 80 years, almost two generations of wrong 
> directions. Biology could not answer, and can not today, nor neuroscience, because the cause of Brownian motion is 
> not biological at all.
>
> Could the same affect our study of consciousness? If consciouness is not biological, what success are we going to 
> have if we look into the neuroscientific, the biological, where it is not?
>
> Here, we don't intend to solve the whole question, pronto. If we just want to shed some light into what is 
> consciouness, from a natural law perspective, we can work with the inanimate as well, considering first the 
> hypothesis that consciousness is not biological, is not to be found in some organ, nor even in aggregate.
>
> The idea that consciousness is not biological opens new perspectives. We no longer have Artifical Intelligence, for 
> example. It may naturally exist, without creation by Humans. Any extra-terrestrial lifeform that exists, biological 
> and Carbon-based or not, is an artificial intelligence (even though not made by us, humans; we seem to feel 
> "especial" also in regard to consciousness, only we could have and transmit).
>
> Molecules, dipeptides, being formed in space, such the Bubble Nebula 8,000 light-years away, not just on Earth, is 
> part of the same picture. What guides a dipeptide to create a protein? What physical principles define the 
> configuration? And folding? What if consciousness is part of it, not end of it?
>
> Of course, staying within natural science, can we even ask the questions? Well, the rule has been that if we can 
> formulate the question well enough, the answer is obvious. If the answer is not biologic, we can't find it using 
> neuroscience. But neuroscience can help even more, in the formation of neurons from a matrix already showing 
> consciousness, in rudimentary form, rather than creating it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 09:43 Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: David Orban <david () davidorban com>
> > > Date: June 11, 2018 at 8:59:13 AM PDT
> > > To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > > Cc: ip <ip () listbox com>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
> > >
> > > > evolution does not turn rocks into birds.
> > >
> > > Huh? Actually that is exactly what evolution does. 
> > >
> > > It takes a very long time: 4 billion years ago there were only rocks on Earth, no birds. Now we have birds, and 
> > > we've had them for a few tens of millions of years.
> > >
> > > There are those who are asking whether the evolution of evolution, the emergence of tools that produce faster 
> > > solutions to changing conditions, has leveled up. After the way biology has been able to produce these solutions, 
> > > we've seen the way human culture and technology did the same: the difference is astonishing, when you look around 
> > > the planet. Will we see a similar step function change with ever smarter autonomous systems?
> > >
> > > Even if you believe we won't, it is worth letting those who want to find out the answers run their experiments. And 
> > > if in the meantime they sell stock of their companies, let them. Once they are going to be found to have been wrong 
> > > to worry, we can all rejoice, and sell the stock in their respective companies. Were it that they were right, 
> > > helping them may save the human race. 
> > >
> > > David Orban
> > > "What is the question that I should be asking?"
> > > twitter, linkedin, etc: davidorban
> > >
> > > ᐧ
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Daniel Berninger <dan () danielberninger com>
> > > > > Date: June 11, 2018 at 04:29:32 PDT
> > > > > To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> > > > > Subject: NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave,
> > > > >
> > > > > For IP, the NYTimes pretends in a Sunday article the Musk/Zuckerberg "feud" anchors two sides of the AI debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and the Feud Over Killer Robots"
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/technology/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-artificial-intelligence.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope.  Elon and Mark evangelize the same promise/threat of a "Singularity" where AI (aka computers) surpass 
> > > > > humans.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "debate" is actually over whether or not this Singularity ever happens.  
> > > > >
> > > > > George Gilder answers with an emphatic *not* in his next book "Life After Google" .
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-after-google-george-gilder/1126605456
> > > > >
> > > > > The plans of Elon and Mark and their fellow AI evangelists suffer the "Real Boy Fantasy".
> > > > >
> > > > > Geppetto's ambitions to turn Pinnochio into a real boy required a magical animate piece of wood.
> > > > >
> > > > > Elon and Mark rely on the inevitable force of evolution, but I am afraid evolution does not turn rocks into birds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evolution also does not involve software programing (aka human) intervention.
> > > > >
> > > > > The march to infinite processing capacity is irrelevant to this fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > Processing does not bring symbols to life any more than an effort to perfect the painting of a portrait.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only super intelligence revealed in the NYTimes article and the entire AI debate is the ability of Elon and 
> > > > > Mark to sell stock.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > > > ..........................................
> > > > > Daniel Berninger
> > > > > Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
> > > > > e: dan () danielberninger com
> > > > > tel SD: +1.202.250.3838
> > > > > SIP HD: dan () danielberninger com
> > > > > w: www.vcxc.org
> >
> > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now         



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20180611133327:8A5D3D7C-6D9D-11E8-8C66-B6C50ED3DB56
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com