Host Harry Kreisler welcomes philosopher Hubert Dreyfus for a discussion of why machines cannot become human. In their discussion, they talk about the role of philosophy in clarifying what it means...
Host Harry Kreisler welcomes philosopher Hubert Dreyfus for a discussion of why machines cannot become human. In their discussion, they talk about the role of philosophy in clarifying what it means to be human. Series: Conversations with History [9/2006] [Humanities] [Science] [Show ID: 11335]
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
This video has been removed from your Favorites. (Undo)
Like to Favorite videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
He undercuts his argument by reducing the action of "intercorporeality" to the function of mirror-neurons. If this is true, this "intercorporeality" is the result of a type of neural circuitry that could easily be mapped in a computer's circuitry. He also explains, somewhat unwittingly, how we will accomplish strong-AI, by giving robots bodies and senses similar to our own. His prediction that this could never happen is groundless, and, accordingly, he never supports it here or in his book
i thought he was using the function of mirror-neurons as one example of intercorporeality but i will have to watch again and check. You are right that his prediction is groundless, but i believe Dreyfus' argument is really that machines can never be Dasein. I would agree with him for the time being.
Its not groundless - and if you read the philosophy his work was based on you'd realise this (Merleau-Ponty's "Phenomenology of Perception). Merleau-Ponty shows how symbolice logis - that which is used in computers/machines - is actually built UPON sensory perception and not vice versa. If this is the case trying to mimic our senses and bodies with symbolic logic is impossible - it's putting the cart before the horse. Merleau-Ponty's masterpiece is your "ground" - all 650 odd pages of it...
And regarding the notion of mirror-notions - of course this couldn't be mapped into computer circuitery. Computer works in a causal space which is pretty much linear. If a neuron creates something from nothing you're no longer in a linear causal space. People may dream that they'll be able to create a computer outside linear causality - they won't be able because the symbolic logic the computers are based on is itself based on linear causality. I'm sorry but I don't think you understand Dreyfus
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
He also explains, somewhat unwittingly, how we will accomplish strong-AI, by giving robots bodies and senses similar to our own. His prediction that this could never happen is groundless, and, accordingly, he never supports it here or in his book
You are right that his prediction is groundless, but i believe Dreyfus' argument is really that machines can never be Dasein. I would agree with him for the time being.
If this is the case trying to mimic our senses and bodies with symbolic logic is impossible - it's putting the cart before the horse.
Merleau-Ponty's masterpiece is your "ground" - all 650 odd pages of it...
People may dream that they'll be able to create a computer outside linear causality - they won't be able because the symbolic logic the computers are based on is itself based on linear causality.
I'm sorry but I don't think you understand Dreyfus
I wanna watch Jeopardy, yeah definitely gotta get back for Jeopardy. 7.30, it's on at 7.30.
7.30