Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

AI replacing humans is consistent with Dawkins’s naturalist philosophy

Spread the love

Which is where the wheels come off:

Dawkins does not advance an argument for why “anything that a human brain can do can be replicated in silicon,” apart from the fact that he is “committed to the view that there’s nothing in our brains that violates the laws of physics.” That is, of course, a statement of faith, not a finding…

In short, Dawkins thinks that the Hard Problem of our own consciousness may be “forever beyond us” because we didn’t evolve so as to be able to understand it. But we are not to draw any inferences about consciousness from that remarkable state of affairs.

The odd situation is in fact evidence that consciousness is not wholly governed by physics, as Dawkins claims. But we are not to pursue it. Why not?

Looking back after a couple of years, the question arises: Is all this past its sell-by date?

News, “Why Richard Dawkins thinks AI may replace us” at Mind Matters News

Further reading:

Four researchers whose work sheds light on the reality of the mind The brain can be cut in half, but the intellect and will cannot, says Michael Egnor. The intellect and will are metaphysically simple.

Philosopher: Consciousness is not a problem: Dualism is. Physicalist David Papineau says consciousness is just “brain processes that feel like something.”

and

Why is science growing comfortable with panpsychism (“everything is conscious”)?

3 Replies to “AI replacing humans is consistent with Dawkins’s naturalist philosophy

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    The normal rule for the progress of theory-based “science” is simple and well established. When you observe something that doesn’t fit your theories, expand your theories.

    Consciousness doesn’t fit the laws of physics. Consciousness undoubtedly exists. So the laws of physics need to be expanded to include whatever this is.

    Instead, Dawkins tries to go the other way, cancelling out the part of reality that doesn’t fit the theories.

    REAL science, useful problem-solving science, doesn’t bother with theories at all. Just negative feedback. See a problem; systematically try solutions; optimize solutions.

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    So I read this and I was dumbfounded by some of the stuff that he said, so in response to that, if he truly thinks it would be better for us to go extinct then maybe he should start with himself

    Secondly, in response to his last comment about the fact that we have not evolved with the ability to understand consciousness, this is an exact example of the evolution of gaps problem the one that was always levied as the god of gaps problem against religion

    Gaps filling is not created by the organization, but is simply created by people and I always found it fallacious and insulting that it was always levied against my religion as proof to why my religion is not legitimate and it stifles science

    It’s just people that levy this argument that don’t understand what they’re looking at

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    I think I’m gonna save these types of snippets for when people start levying the god of gaps argument

Leave a Reply