Does the submarine swim?*

Let’s see what Noam Chomsky said about one concern in Philosophy of Mind today: whether our actions are somehow unconscious or not. Of course, this idea evolves defining consciousness as well. Also, a little bit about AI and robotics come together.
Answering the question if our mind can be emulated using silicon, Chomsky quoted that the mind is just an organized matter, that is, our brain is a physical system. However, there are some researchers studying if the voluntary actions are sometimes preceded by a preconscious brain´s activity that can reach the consciousness or not. Thus, probably we don’t have a right access to our introspection as we believe. Following this argument, Chomsky also argued that the task of investigating our preconscious decision is a problem that is harder than the investigation of the consciousness itself.
On the other hand, artificial intelligence (AI), meaning the way cognitive system works, investigates how the things are going on when we decide to do this or that and it can contribute to this debate. But, will the robots be conscious in the future? Firstly, how we know what the consciousness is and how it works? For Chomsky, asking if the machines think is the same as asking if submarines can swim. It is a logical question. The serious version of the Turing test is to be applied on real scenarios, for example, to know if a mathematical proof is correct or not.
So, by the Chomsky analysis we can realize that his vision is near of Physicalism although he didn’t give us much information in this short video. Moreover, the consciousness is not a mystery for him which indicates the irrelevance of this investigation and empathizing the more realistic cases.


* Chomsky short speech: https://youtu.be/0ORHGa-vQp0?t=3

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free will and determinism*

          According to SoL (School of Life), the debate between free will and determinism has been crossing the Philosophy History since the beginning until our time reaching even the neuroscientists. It concerns about whether the human being is able to dominate their actions by themselves or they are determined by forces beyond their control, like fate and politics. SoL argues that the long running arguments in favor or against both sides are not conclusive because they are based on objective variables when they should be thought as what is relevant to me (to me… to me?). Also, they vary from person to person guided by two psychological aspects: defeatism and aspiration.           Does the course of our life belong to the others, like our parents, bosses and so on or can we change our life and our relationships based on our strenght and free will? The second should be even better but more difficult, of course. So moving far from the o...
Read more

The soul is just a function*

Image
Putman talks about the contribution of Computer Science to Philosophy of Mind in terms of thinking the mind as a kind of function rather than physical or chemistry. He says that the rise of computers could result in everything being explained in terms of machines but the paradox is that it didn´t contribute for this kind of reductionism . Generally, according to Putman, when we work with computer we think in its programs, instructions, rules, etc., and we ignore the hardware. Ironically, he says that there is an emergency (not violating the laws of physics) where we work in a high level of the organization, in the program level. So we can think in the mind the same way: instead of thinking we are spirit inboded would be better think in the relation between the mind and the body in terms of functions. * Short digest of short interisting vídeo: https://youtu.be/m0YIm8p30aU . Acessed in Jan, 28 th . Hilary Putnam on Functionalism.
Read more

Eudaimonia*

SoL (School of Life) worked with the eudaimonia concept in this video: a word that comes from Plato and Aristotle. Basically, SoL compares eudaimonia with a contemporaneous word - happiness - saying that the ancient philosophers didn’t propose us to have a happy life. The purpose of our life is not avoid suffering or be unhappy – the way the word is used today, but overcome the daily and simple challenges that come every day under pressure. For SoL, eudaimonia should be associated with the word fulfilment that is distinguished by happiness by pain. So, the word eudaimonia is able to accommodate happy and unhappy and, instead of pursuing a pain free existence, we need to go further and we can make the difference. In short terms, we need to do what is really important more than to smile all the time. Follows eudaimonia recommendation means that we can spend our whole life fighting in our job, relationship and political engagement but finishing our days feeling these tasks wer...
Read more