She could be one of the strongest proponents of scientific determinism. For me, while not subscribing to either "extremes" of "free will" and "hard determinism," but looking for a "middle" that is beneficial, this is still an interesting video. I do think that the computer algorithm analogy is flawed in this context. Computer programs can produce outputs that are at least theoretically predictable. They are fully deterministic in the above sense. Yet when we use some of these it is more useful to work with probabilities and consider them as black boxes that can be trained rather than worrying about the underlying physics.
Nobody can predict human behavior with such accuracy as a computer program, so there is no pragmatic value for convincing one about the underlying equations. No one can use those equations for any behavioral change. So, from a practical point of view, problems of self and value are not in the domain of machines. They are human problems - let alone the problem of having responsibility for computers' actions too.
When future technology allows scientists to predict human behavior with computer program-like accuracy, then we will have that as new knowledge (Wittgenstein's argument, as Sabine says) about ourselves and maybe "The Minority Report" governments.
Comments
Post a Comment