Here, in human mitochondrial DNA — note the BLUE code start and the RED code stop; all HT to Wiki publishing against known ideological interest: Complex interwoven code is of course doubly functionally specific, so it is exponentially harder to account for, other than by exceedingly sophisticated and creative intelligently directed configuration. Indeed, when I Read More…
At Wired: The wagon—and the wagon wheel—could not have been put together in stages. Either it works, or it doesn’t. And it enabled humans to spread rapidly into huge parts of the world.
This is not an excellent time to be a materialist. Materialism is losing its Cool. It’s not even making sense.
Horgan: The concept of information makes no sense in the absence of something to be informed—that is, a conscious observer capable of choice, or free will (sorry, I can’t help it, free will is an obsession).
But wait, say others, the hard problem of consciousness is not so easily dismissed.
Pachon: After all the tangle of modernism, Gödel left us as at the beginning: it is not merely that we cannot make a determination, but that even our most formal systems require faith—just like before modernism began.
If consciousness is intrinsic to the nature of the universe, to say that consciousness evolved would be like saying that photons evolved: “The photon has the characteristics it does in order to maximize its chances of survival and passing on its genes.” Um, let’s go back to the top of the page, shall we? …
Egnor: Someday, I predict, there will be a considerable psychiatric literature on the denial of free will. It’s essentially a delusion dressed up as science. To insist that your neurotransmitters completely control your choices is no different than insisting that your television or your iphone control your thoughts. It’s crazy.
The basic problem is that human minds aren’t “computable.” Peter and Jane are not bits and bytes
As a jokester recently demonstrated, even “shirts without stripes” is a fundamental, unsolvable problem for computers.
In Silicon Valley that has long been a serious belief. But are we really anywhere close?
Surprising results from computer programs do not equate to creativity, says computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord. Is there such a thing as machine creativity? The feats of machines like AlphaGo are due to superior computational power, not to creativity at originating new ideas. Computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord sees the ability to write, say, a novel of Read More…
The Turing test has had a free ride in science media for far too long, says an AI expert: In the view of Rensselaer philosopher and computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord, the iconic Turing test for human-like intelligence in computers is inadequate and easily gamed. Merely sounding enough like a human to fool people does not Read More…
Modern brain imaging studies show that very often they can. And, with help from new technology, they can answer us too. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor explains.
Roger Sperry’s Nobel Prize-winning split-brain research convinced him that the mind and free will are real.