I have long wondered why "big data" and AI are bringing back the worst kind of science from the late 19th and early 20th century, namely eugenics (assuming "intelligence" is bred, rather than acquired), physiognomy (linking measurements of the body to mental/social…
…characteristics) and behaviorism (postulating that external observation, rather than introspection is key to understanding human beings). Slowly, I think I start to understand. What connects these approaches is that they all side-step questions of consciousness.
For none of these approaches, what people think, how they view the world and themselves, are important.
And if we assume that computers have no consciousness, and cannot model it, it's pretty clear that computer scientists will gravitate (or reinvent) approaches to understanding human beings that do not involve the assumption that human consciousness is a relevant factor.
While I would not argue that these approaches never have any value, to generalize the irrelevance of human consciousness is certainly going to generate ugly realities (technocratic authoritarianism) and profound human suffering.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
