[yongjik]

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/12-out-there-mysterious...

> We know a lot about the physics of the macroscopic world, but can we be sure that we aren’t missing one of those crucial ingredients? The answer is yes: In certain well-defined cases, we can be very sure. [...] And while there may be unknown forces waiting to be discovered, we can say with great confidence that such forces must be so feeble that only a professional physicist like me would really care.

Not only the _detectable_ universe is entirely made of matter and energy (which is not a hypothesis: it's a tautology, if you think about it), but there isn't a single shred of evidence that our brain employs anything beyond chemicals and mundane electromagnetic forces.

"Kuhnian revolution" happens when the evidences mount up to the point the old paradigm cannot explain them away without great contortion. What we have here instead is a very confused semantic hair-splitting (no pun intended) about whether computers can do "semantics".

The modern materialistic science is supported by vast evidence and very alive and well, thank you very much.

[yc-kjh]

Read, and then critique, Nagle's recent book: http://www.Amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-...

Please come back and post your response here, or start a new Hacker-News story.

[yongjik]

I'll take it as you don't have any evidence that human brain requires anything other than electromagnetism, then.

[yc-kjh]

Au contraire.

Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. (The same statement applies to all of the chemical processes involved in the human brain.)

Please read Nagle's work. Read Searle's work. Read all of the philosophical literature on "intention".

[Jtsummers]

> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. [emphasis added]

Let's extend this to include chemical reactions (since we know that it's more than just wires and currents in our skulls), and my question becomes: what evidence do you have that this is true?

A few hundred year ago if you had claimed the sun was illuminated by the energy from the massive number of fusion reactions occurring under its surface, no one would have believed you, not least because there was no language at the time to even discuss the physical mechanisms that actually occur. At best you may have been able to persuade people that it was a giant flame, akin to the fire and candle they knew. That doesn't mean that there is some other supernatural thing going on, just that the natural goings on weren't understood.

[Groxx]

>... since the human obviously has both intentions and goals ...

You're just arguing past people.

Humans obviously do this, computers obviously don't, therefore computers cannot do what humans do.

There's nothing "obvious" about this. It's a completely subjective interpretation. How do you respond to people who say humans obviously do act precisely like a very-complex computer?

[vidarh]

In fact one of the reasons I bothered answering him on this, is that the more I learn about how humans respond, the less I am inclined to consider the possibility that we're not machines, and I find it extremely fascinating how someone can feel so sure we're not.

More and more, I am coming to terms with seeing humans as far simpler machines in many respects than what we'd like to think, on the basis of how many response patterns appears to be largely "hard-wired" and require little to no higher thought processes, even though we often make up elaborate explanations after the fact if challenged (as can be demonstrated by asking people why they did <insert random thing that the person in fact did not do, but wouldn't remember conclusively they didn't>)

[Groxx]

I suspect people can "feel so sure" because they can feel, and see no evidence that computers can.

But that's a dangerous edge to walk regardless. Humans feel, computers don't - most would agree. Humans feel, animals don't - many would agree, many would not, many would draw a finer line between e.g. mammals and others. Humans feel, inferior-race-X does not (frequently argued about slaves) - many would disagree, but obviously many do think this is true.

For myself: I've seen nowhere near conclusive proof either way, and continually-increasing evidence in favor of human == machine.

[vidarh]

> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology)

You're begging the question here. If the world is materialistic, then physical processes can cause intentions, hence this claim is false if your conclusion is false.

[yc-kjh]

No, I'm not begging the question. In another response, I readily admit that if materialism is true, then AI is a foregone conclusion.

Please prove that mere electromagnetism can cause intentions, goals, and teleology. Limit yourself to Maxwell's equations, and the consequences thereof.

I look forward to your response, but I am not hopeful that you will provide a cogent answer.

[vidarh]

> In another response, I readily admit that if materialism is true, then AI is a foregone conclusion.

Of course, that is a meaningless admission when you repeatedly claim that it is proven that materialism is false elsewhere.

I do not need to prove anything. I've already explained why your claims are unproven and why your arguments does not support your conclusions unless your stated conclusions are already true.

I am not the one repeatedly making strong assertion of fact about controversial claims. The only thing I've made strong claims about is the logical validity of some of your arguments.

You might note that I've carefully tried to avoid making strong assertions at all in this matter. While I default to the materialistic hypothesis, I do so in the absence of evidence of anything else. Because of this default assumption, I by extension assume that human level intelligent AIs - and above - will eventually happen.

Those assumptions are as far as I'll go with respect to making claims about it, and there's nothing there that demands a proof, since I've not claimed they're proven, unless - given the context of this discussion - you want me to prove I actually hold those assumptions, rather than being some automaton that is somehow only capable of syntax.

[olalonde]

If you had told someone in year 1800 "computers are impossible, just go ahead and build one", said person wouldn't have been able to build one but you'd still be wrong. You can't just casually ask this in an argument about the theoretical possibility of AI.

[gnaritas]

> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals

Says who, where's the evidence of this? This is a bold claim and an unproven one. As it's your primary axiom, the discussion can go no further until this fantastic claim has some evidence.

[VMG]

> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals

Yes it can. Source: my brain.