[p2p-research] Drone hacking

[Ryan Lanham]

On 12/24/09, Tere Vadén <tere.vaden at uta.fi> wrote:
>
>
>> At the end of the day the human brain may be a quantum device, but for
>> the purposes of behavioral predictability it is indistinguishable from
>> a classical computing device. It is almost an orthogonal argument.
>>
>
> No it is not. Like you pointed out at the beginning, one crucial question
> is which way Occam's razor is supposed to cut. If one would want to argue
> for the view that the razor should cut away classical determinism, one
> supporting observation could be that the behavioral predictability that you
> speak about does not exist, other than as an idealization. So the claim
> about full deterministic predictability is exactly the kind of unnecessary
> complication that Occam is talking about. We can do science, more simple
> science, without the claim.




> It really doesn't matter.  Reproduction is not the aim.  The aim is
> superiority.


But the point is clear that there is nothing going on in brains that cannot
be simulated that has been identified so far in terms of learning processes
or "thinking".  I don't see anything Andrew has said is in any way
deterministic or reductionist...particularly in any naive way.  Sometimes a
bit testy and snarky, yes, reductionist or deterministic, no.

The object here isn't to meld your brain with a machine and have it take
over your identity.  I realize that is some of the singularity press.  To my
mind that is salesmanship.  The aim is to build machines that have a much
higher probability of doing things we find getting from human brains as
useful.  That is, to limit the artificial scarcity of human intellect.
Smart doesn't have to be elite...we won't need thinkers.  That can be
offloading to systems far better suited to do it.  People can simple improve
for the fun of it...just like we have distance runners even though we have
cars and motorbikes.

In what way can this possibly be offensive?  To me it sounds great.  It puts
to the test all of the shibboleths of being human.  Thus, the transhuman
term is quite appropriate and accurate.  I don't want to live on perpetually
in a machine.  I want to know my children will live in a safe world ruled by
robots that respond to crises in appropriate ways and with learning and
reasoning vastly beyond what mere politicians and philosophers can muster.
Why is that not an appropriate goal now that it starts to appear
attainable?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091224/e612e54c/attachment.html>