The capability for A.I. to revolutionize the healthcare industry is of interest to me.

Doctors already seem to rely on statistical likelihood when deciding on whether or not to administer certain tests. A sophisticated A.I. could have access to a huge database of actual stats by which more efficient diagnosis could be made. This could free up actual doctors to specialize rather than to deal with basic drug administration and reduce the stress of patient load.

And how different are we from robots?

God made us in his image.

We make robots in our image.

I don't think we're looking for a physical companion as much as an intellectual stand-in with whom we can strike a decent conversation.

Isn't that what IBM Watson is being used for now, having ruined Jeopardy?

It turns out the world’s smartest supercomputer is a pretty good doctor, too.

Five years after dominating geniuses in its debut on Jeopardy!, IBM’s Watson is still putting human intelligence to shame.

The artificial intelligence machine correctly diagnosed a 60-year-old woman’s rare form of leukemia within 10 minutes — a medical mystery that doctors had missed for months at the University of Tokyo.

I personally would prefer a smart retriever over a computer to keep me company in a Senior Citizens Storage Tower, but a robot doesn't shed hair, doesn't have to urinate 8 times a day, defecate once or twice a day, doesn't chew up shoes, etc. On the other hand, a robot wouldn't lick my feet, nuzzle me, couldn't look deeply into my eyes to assess the condition of my soul, or decide to rest on top of me with her sharp elbow digging into my ribs.

And how different are we from robots? — TheMadFool

I can't speak for you, but I am as different from a robot as a fish is from an iPhones.

I can't speak for you, but I am as different from a robot as a fish is from an iPhones. — Bitter Crank

The principles we (robots, fish, iPhones, humans) work on e.g. the laws of physics and chemistry are same. The difference I believe is that of degree not of kind.

Therefore, I do see a future where robots become/simulate humans very well, to the effect that we become indistinguishable.

The principles we (robots, fish, iPhones, humans) work on e.g. the laws of physics and chemistry are same. The difference I believe is that of degree not of kind. — TheMadFool

Are planets robots? How about black holes? Plants? Fire?

Physics and chemistry apply to everything physical. You've basically equated robotics with those two fields. There needs to be a bit more discrimination before you can compare life forms to robots.

Is a squid like a robot?

There needs to be a bit more discrimination before you can compare life forms to robots. — Marchesk

DNA, RNA, proteins are molecules that follow chemical principles.

Muscle, bone, joints follow physics principles

I don't see why you take an issue here?

Of course there's a difference between a robot and living things. Living things are far more complex than the robots of today. However, in the finaly analysis, life is naught but a complex chemical reaction. Am I wrong?

Am I wrong? — TheMadFool

Yes. Complexity is more than a nothing but. My bed is made of wood, but I do not sleep in a tree.

Of course there's a difference between a robot and living things. Living things are far more complex than the robots of today. However, in the finaly analysis, life is naught but a complex chemical reaction. Am I wrong? — TheMadFool

I think you might be wrong.

I don't think it is possible to explain life in terms of the laws of physics(+chemistry). In order to explain life you need to invoke at least replicators subject to variation and selection, and I don't think these concepts can be reduced to physics. Also a rather detailed history has to be invoked in order to explain present day biodiversity, and a great deal of that history will involve behaviour, which again cannot be expressed in terms of physics.

Also, physics does tell us that there is a difference in kind between a human and fish brain, not degree. In this respect, our brains are more like a laptop or an iphone than a fish.

Yes. Complexity is more than a nothing but. My bed is made of wood, but I do not sleep in a tree. — unenlightened

Yet one may fall off from both a bed and a tree. Gravity doesn't discriminate.

In order to explain life you need to invoke at least replicators subject to variation and selection, and I don't think these concepts can be reduced to physics. Also a rather detailed history has to be invoked in order to explain present day biodiversity, and a great deal of that history will involve behaviour, which again cannot be expressed in terms of physics. — tom

Doesn't science explain all physical phenomena? Why does life get a special status. We've been using science (biology and medicine) to understand life and look how much progress we've made.

The principles we (robots, fish, iPhones, humans) work on e.g. the laws of physics and chemistry are same. The difference I believe is that of degree not of kind. — TheMadFool

Robots, iPhones, etc., work on principles known to human beings, and applied by human beings. Living beings work on (as of yet) unknown principles. If we ever want to learn these principles, we might have to change the other principles.

Robots, iPhones, etc., work on principles known to human beings, and applied by human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

But, mind you, not made by humans.

Living beings work on (as of yet) unknown principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed

But, mind you, not made by humans. — TheMadFool

What, robots and iPhones are not made by humans? What are they made by, robots?

Oh I see, you're talking about the principles. They're made by human beings as well, creative expressions of human language.

Doesn't science explain all physical phenomena? Why does life get a special status. We've been using science (biology and medicine) to understand life and look how much progress we've made. — TheMadFool

Our current best theory of life is Neo-Dawinism. It is a theory of replicators subject to variation and selection. Where's the physics in that?

We also have other theories whose fundamental objects are independent of underlying physics - e.g. the theories of information and computation. Even thermodynamics is a theory of heat engines, which is somewhat independent of the particular design of the particular heat engine i.e we abstract away a great deal of the physics.

So, while science may indeed explain everything, this cant be done in terms of physics(+ chemistry).

They're made by human beings as well, creative expressions of human language. — Metaphysician Undercover

:-O

Our current best theory of life is Neo-Dawinism. It is a theory of replicators subject to variation and selection. Where's the physics in that? — tom

Chemistry?

It's one thing to be a reductionist (the idea that the laws of physics can, theoretically, account for reality). It's something else to be an intelligent reductionist who has some scheme to explain HOW reality can be accounted for with the principles of physics (and chemistry, if you like). I'm not an intelligent reductionist; I can't explain a fish leaping out of the water and catching an insect (or an eagle swooping down and catching the fish). I can't explain how my own mind composes these sentences and sends instructions to my fingers to type these letters.

You, Mad Fool, can't either, it seems. At least, you haven't demonstrated that you can. You too are not an intelligent reductionist. You are making a reductionist claim, but I don't think you have the means to make reductionism work in all the manifest complexity of reality. We are in the same crowded boat.

Some things can be accounted for with physics and chemistry, and those "some things" account for big hunks of reality. But there is a lot which we really can not explain with stuff like inertia, waves of light, gravity, and conductivity. Or, just in case you were thinking of it, quantum mechanics.

Beyond a certain point, there is a lot of stuff that just isn't explainable--given what we know, and given what we don't know.

Beyond a certain point, there is a lot of stuff that just isn't explainable--given what we know, and given what we don't know — Bitter Crank

I agree. However, science, in its principles and methodology, is reductionist by your definition. In addition to say life(I'm assuming you have that in mind) is not explicable in terms of science is special pleading. It is not me (I have the whole of science backing me up from atoms to the universe itself) who has to explain. Rather it is you and others who believe there's something extra, something inexplicable, something mysterious going on who have to do the explaining - why is life and other things you have in mind inexplicable in terms of science?


That said, I can imagine n number of ways in which our universe could be different, radically so, to the extent that it could effortlessly upend our current understanding: atoms may not really exist, god may exist, reincarnation could be true, telepathy could be possible, etc.

So, although I think science is on the right track I also keep an open mind.

I can't explain how my own mind composes these sentences and sends instructions to my fingers to type these letters. — Bitter Crank

When the science of the mind reaches the level of sophistication where it can explain what you do and think, what do you think the fundamental object of study will be? Atoms? Quarks? Or maybe, just maybe, it will take "mind" as it's fundamental object.

The science of computation studies universal computers, not electrons. Biology studies Life, not quarks, and Information theory studies, well, information.

Reductionism has been an extremely effective methodology in science, but it is a mistake to think that when we deal with fundamental objects of a theory, they must be capable of being explained at a lower level. You simply cannot explain computation or animal behaviour or thought in terms of the Standard Model.

In addition to say life(I'm assuming you have that in mind) is not explicable in terms of science is special pleading. — TheMadFool

It's not special pleading, it's just reality, a statement of fact.

It's not special pleading, it's just reality, a statement of fact — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I commit the fallacy of accident.

Perhaps I commit the fallacy of accident. — TheMadFool

The scientific explanation of life is fundamentally a theory of replicators undergoing variation and selection. Life could exist under any physics that supports that level of emergence.

So you're saying physics, as we know it, is sufficient but not necessary for life? If you are, I agree.

However, what do you make of the other posters, who seem to be anti-reductionism? Do you think there's more to life and the universe than equations and theories?

why is life and other things you have in mind inexplicable in terms of science? — TheMadFool

I wasn't clear enough. While we can get along without reductionism (getting down to very small parts which together become the whole), there are limits to our application. We are limited because we don't have all the information we would need to account for everything, and we probably won't get all that information in the next few weeks.

I didn't want to name some things, like life or mind, as "inexplicable and beyond science". I look to science to explain the world, but our knowledge is limited, so some things remain inexplicable, for now.

But what I was objecting to was waving a physics textbook over the termite mound and saying "This explains everything." It doesn't, it can't. Not because life is beyond science -- but rather, our science isn't quite that capable yet.

But what I was objecting to was waving a physics textbook over the termite mound and saying "This explains everything." It doesn't, it can't. Not because life is beyond science -- but rather, our science isn't quite that capable yet. — Bitter Crank

Science is perfectly capable of explaining Life. It does not do so in terms of the Standard Model or General Relativity because that is not possible.

Still - regarding the point of my opening post - Isn’t there something intrinsically demeaning and tragic towards the self respect of a human being concerning the prospect of there being having to be reduced to attempting an empathetic relationship with the illusory simulations of an automaton?!...

Anyway - though slightly tangential to the opening post - nonetheless in this context it’s maybe reassuring of the hope that consciousness is not ultimately material in origin to reflect on how a description of that phenomenon is in principle inimical to the methodology of science – a means of describing the causal hierarchy constituting the relations existing between sensorialy perceived phenomena as that discipline is – consciousness ultimately being a non-sensorial experience occurring independently of the capacity to sensorialy perceive, as any laboratory controlled exercise intending to effect sensory deprivation would of course confirm!

The fact that a causative relationship is possible between a material (and therefore sensorialy perceivable) entity and a non-sensorialy perceived experience is routinely observable - I only need take a beer to witness an example of that – but yet it’s perhaps no exaggeration to observe that the occurrence of such every-day experiences nonetheless constitutes the witnessing of the single most profound type of interaction evident in the Universe?

To expand on what I meant in my last post btw: - asuming anyone’s still watching that is! -

The methodology of Science – proceeding as this does by means of deductive reasoning to describe a putative mechanism characterised by a logical relation involving the concept of cause and effect intended to abstractly replicate the nature of our sensorialy perceived experience as this derives from our observation of either physical or mathematical phenomena (the sensorial basis of the latter being stipulated in elementary geometry) – the methodology of Science surely, in principle, is incapable of describing a mechanism to effectively replicate in the abstract the phenomenon of consciousness, our experience of the latter ultimately being non-sensorial in nature.

Its perhaps difficult to envisage how in principle the idea of a ‘mechanism’ could in itself be suited to describing the interaction occurring between a sensorialy evident cause and the non-sensorialy perceived effect we experience as 'Consciousness'. Perhaps one consequence in practice then of such a paradox could conceivably consist in the pragmatic finding that theories advanced with the intention of describing consciousness by means of a cause and effect mechanism are in reality invariably judged to be unsatisfactory not only in practice - but also in principle: Even the most sophisticated of such theories, such as those invoking the insights of Quantum physics/mathematics being, at their conclusion, typically reduced merely to appealing with regard to the mechanisms by which they purport to describe this phenomenon, ‘Perhaps – “That" - is consciousness?’, without any more exacting attempt being made at constructing a rigorous specifically connective relationship between the causal mechanism proposed and the effect purported to be described - such that, with regard to the criteria concerning a scientific theory intended to describe sensorialy perceived phenomena, such 'descriptions' would not be accorded the status of ‘Scientific theory’ at all.

The problem as constituted then is perhaps not one characterised by limitation of knowledge or degree of complexity but rather is one of kind: How in principle, using the orthodox methodology of Science, to describe the interaction occurring between a sensorialy perceived cause and a non-sensorialy perceived effect - the scientific method, as stated, characteristically proceeding by attempting to abstractly replicate our observed experience through proposing theoretical mechanisms intended to describe, in terms of cause and effect, interactions occurring specifically between sensorialy perceivable phenomena?
Accordingly then, the idea of intending to abstractly replicate the non-sensorialy perceived phenomenon which we call 'Consciousness' through constructing such mechanisms would seem to represent a direct contradiction in terms.