The Pseudo-Science Thread

[redraven]

I am going to try to debunk some things I've seen in some threads here. This is not a personal attack but a discussion.

1. There is no proof for memes. There has not been one scientific experiment run on memes, and this is not because the world is close-minded, but because there is no need to, they are not science.
2. The idea of programming people is simply behaviorism, and behaviorism works, but only on lower order animals. Even animals like chimps and dolphins do not respond to pure behavioral methods.
3. There will never be a computer with consciousness. This is because computers do not think like people, and never will. It is possible to use human algorithms of thinking in computers, but this will not give a computer consciousness.

An example: Let's say I go to a restaurant I've never been to. I have to make a lot of decisions, will I wait? Will I sit at the bar and have a drink? What kind of drink will I have? Where will I sit? Do I like the waitress? What food will I eat? etc... I do all of this with almost no data at all. This is not algorithmic thinking, and I would argue that it is not random. A computer would have to compute every piece of data in the restaurant in order to make one decision, and it would take a supercomputer MONTHS to do it. Plus, a computer has no need for food, and so would have no interest in restaurants anyway.

This is by no means an ironclad argument, and I'm open to discuss this with people. I find I learn best in dialogue, and I will be friendly about discussing these issues, even though I have strong feelings on them.

In the meantime, post other kinds of pseudo-science and your thoughts here while we're discussing. :thumbsup:

[scameter]

Computers do what we make them do. Robots do what we program them to do. If a robot is able to do normal humans things, such as make jokes and talk and prepare dinner and such, we have programmed it to do so. As soon as there is a robot/computer that has no programming we gave it, that has programming as soon as it is made and without the effort of any, and when it cannot be turned off unless it's systems are unable to run anymore, such as when our systems are unable to run when we are shot in the head, or when it becomes aware, without our programming efforts, that it can be turned on and off, then I will call it alive.

[Thomas Knierim]

redraven: 1. There is no proof for memes. There has not been one scientific experiment run on memes, and this is not because the world is close-minded, but because there is no need to, they are not science.

Memetics is a proto-scientific model, not pseudo-scientific. In this regard it is perhaps akin to early formulations of an atomistic universe. The model is not very specific and thus its usefulness is limited. However, memetics can be established empirically, therefore it is not just pseudo science. The fundamental problem is that we do not yet have a comprehensive methodology for a science of mind. Perhaps one day we will look back on memetics and 20th century psychology as the beginning of the science of mind.

redraven: 2. The idea of programming people is simply behaviorism, and behaviorism works, but only on lower order animals. Even animals like chimps and dolphins do not respond to pure behavioral methods.

What are lower order animals? We find that because of the ramshackle architecture of the brain, we have certain components and functionality with fish and reptilians in common. But we also find brain components which these organisms don't have. So we are partly programmable, but our behaviour is much more complex than that of a fish or a reptile. In particular, it is the learning capability of mammals and humans which leads to constant self-programming and -in case of humans- reflective evaluation of programs.

redraven: 3. There will never be a computer with consciousness.

Well, the jury is out on that.

The fact that we are not able to explain consciousness does not imply that consciousness is beyond computation. Computation is a very powerful concept. In the 17th century, mankind did not understand gravity. Therefore space flight has been out of the question. It was mere speculation. Today we do not understand consciousness and maybe the problem with consciousness is much harder to solve than the problem with gravity. Therefore, computationalism is speculative today, but it is not pseudo science. I am myself sceptic regarding the possibility of artificial consciousness without embodiment. On the other hand, I am less sceptic regarding aritifial intelligence mimicking (and exceeding) human intelligence.

Cheers, Thomas