Conversations with History: Hubert Dreyfus
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 06. 2024
- Host Harry Kreisler welcomes philosopher Hubert Dreyfus for a discussion of why machines cannot become human. In their discussion, they talk about the role of philosophy in clarifying what it means to be human. [9/2006] [Show ID: 11335]
More from: Conversations with History
(www.uctv.tv/cwh)
Explore More Humanities on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/humanities)
The humanities encourage us to think creatively and explore questions about our world. UCTV explores human culture through literature, history, ethics, philosophy, cinema and religion so we can better understand the human experience.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
I have a very similar story to Dreyfus. Although I grew up in a large city I went to school in a very small town where philosophy was scant. I was very interested in science and math and also on the debate team. Being on the debate team was a way of having some exposure to some philosophers (ethical theorists) and so I decided to take a high school philosophy course when I had the chance and it completely changed my thinking. We had to write an essay for our final project and my essay was on re-thinking Aristotelian causation in regards to matter/form. After reading my essay my teacher gave me a copy of the Crtique of Pure Reason and I have been obsessed with philosophy ever since
He is a great teacher, I like him more than I like my comment about him...
Man! Greatest Intro of all time
His insights on teaching are of great value, there's no room for any behaviourism in classroom. What I liked the most is the good old statement that thinking about thinking isn't thinking itself, same as in thinking about digestion isn't digestion itself, thats what mental representation model has always got wrong.
What an amazing teacher, up until the very end. RIP 🙏
Reports of my demise have not been exaggerated
Hubert has a great articulation when he is speaking and amazing clear mind. 😀
"Be ready to take risks and be open to the thing that's trying to grab you." 56:18
That's what my uncle Ernie used to tell me. Then we would wrestle for a while, and I a can't remember what happened after that...
Did he ***** you?
Actually, if you listen to his case, he states that the programs being developed are following a fairly well-refuted Cartesian model which insists on rules and the mind-body dualism.
He argues that an AI that can approach human behavior would have to have a sense of body and the world and act off a certain sense of what is "right" at that moment, rather than just preprogrammed simple rules. These are fairly immense tasks that most programmers are approaching from an impossible perspective.
This is so damn cool and interesting!I live in Ireland so this is the only chance really that I'll get to hear Dreyfus. Broadband can be brilliant!
I could listen to Dreyfus all day...
The intro looks like a cinematic from Warcraft 1. Amazing
Certainly, internet is a tool. And a powerful one. I live in Spain and I have been able to listen to this wonderful interview.
And then they say that philosophy is of no use in our world, well, the thing is that others "take over" philosophical theses that philosophers no longer accept...
19:40 on authenticity and skills. Rules and guidelines will level you off and be routine, competent, etc. if you strictly follow them in life; rather, you need to respond to the specific situation you're in -- same with all masters in any domain (basketball, poker, driving, pilots, chess, teaching, etc) and thus true for "life" generally: to become, in Aristotelian terms, the "phronemous" (phronesis) person. Nietzsche and even Chomsky (in terms of universal moral principles telling you very little about specific cases) essentially repeat the same idea.
Isn’t he delightful!
Wow..id love to hear Dreyfus talk with Joscha Bach...:-)
4 computers dislike this
now 10 computer dislike that
To be or not be that is the question
Ha ha! for the first 15 minutes I thought this was filmed in 1970. UCTV needs an update.
Oh derrida would be salivating over that production mishap lol
Love his wonderful advice at the end. What sux, tho, is when you DO take that risk, follow your calling, and end up NOT succeeding. In that case, from an Authentic position at the 'bottom', one might have preferred an Inauthentic position in life's 'middle'. Or worse, begin to envy that maybe, being worse than Inauthentic, but even Evil, might have put that person on top (as most people at the top seem to us below).
aha, but consider: authenticity is not about stacking preferences🙂
Dustin, seems you could look again at your definition of success. It takes courage to be ourselves, and to face the consequences. It also takes courage to live a life of false pursuits, that don't improve your self-awareness, or enhance your inner peace. I hope you continue making the right choices.
"They inherited a lemon, a loser philosophy.." lmao I love the cheer that this brings him
Ghandi said, "Live as if you were going to die tomorrow, learn as if you were going to live forever."
Someone else said that earlier than gandi
This music makes me feel like I'm arming up to go battle a dragon.... a philosophical dragon..... heh....
Great interview; however, Dreyfus made a mistake when he attributed the 'open heads turned toward a single, self-evident world' quote to Heidegger. It was Merleau-Ponty who wrote that.
@luxjason Horribly Awesome.
Fascinating interview, and a great overview of one side of the 'AI Intelligence' debate. I'll be honest, I don't find the argument wholly compelling, because there a presupposition that the ultimate aim is to have AI that mimics human intelligence. In a sense, AI has the possibility of extending beyond the corporeal through senses over and above what humans currently have in order to find insights that are quite beyond us (at the moment). The biggest problem for me is this whole obsession with binary (i.e. logic-gate based) representations of the world (sometimes called digital but that seems like a misnomer to me). Our bodies just don't work like that - they are on a continuum. It's a whole bunch of interrelated systems working both independently and together, and with sensory data, in order to influence what happens next. If we could find some way of getting towards a more analog way of representing these systems and interrelations, then we might be closer to something approaching artificial intelligence. To me, our obsession with the binary is really what's holding the field back.
Its not groundless - and if you read the philosophy his work was based on you'd realise this (Merleau-Ponty's "Phenomenology of Perception). Merleau-Ponty shows how symbolice logis - that which is used in computers/machines - is actually built UPON sensory perception and not vice versa.
If this is the case trying to mimic our senses and bodies with symbolic logic is impossible - it's putting the cart before the horse.
Merleau-Ponty's masterpiece is your "ground" - all 650 odd pages of it...
Actually I argued about linear casaul spaces and consciousness being rooted in perception... but that must have passed you by. Perhaps you didn't understand ;).
Come to Berkeley and sit in his class.
isselman2000 I wish I could
DAMN, right where Dreyfus was told to cut, he was riffing that cosmic monochord so hard!
+richidpraah PAINFUL to watch :D
16:20 Pascal
The music at the beginning is a pain to listen to.
30:30 48:50
i love english langguage
Keep Dundes busy, beyond the grave.
He undercuts his argument by reducing the action of "intercorporeality" to the function of mirror-neurons. If this is true, this "intercorporeality" is the result of a type of neural circuitry that could easily be mapped in a computer's circuitry.
He also explains, somewhat unwittingly, how we will accomplish strong-AI, by giving robots bodies and senses similar to our own. His prediction that this could never happen is groundless, and, accordingly, he never supports it here or in his book
And regarding the notion of mirror-notions - of course this couldn't be mapped into computer circuitery. Computer works in a causal space which is pretty much linear. If a neuron creates something from nothing you're no longer in a linear causal space.
People may dream that they'll be able to create a computer outside linear causality - they won't be able because the symbolic logic the computers are based on is itself based on linear causality.
I'm sorry but I don't think you understand Dreyfus
I'm pretty sure the Schrödinger equation is linear, so you're objectively wrong. :-)
@@darrennew8211 Linear equations and linear causality are two totally different concepts. The only thing they share in common is the word 'linear'.
sayeed0011:
Way to allow your own fanatical contempt for Dreyfus et al. to make you say stupid things. 35:35 and thereabouts is hardly a caricature of Aristotle for the sake of extolling Heidegger, since there Dreyfus credits Aristotle with originating the conception of skillful practical mastery which Heidegger took up and adapted to his own purposes. It's fine to think that advocates of neo-pragmatism are mistaken about all sorts of things, but that hardly licenses telling lies about them.
Seems to me that all this talk of developing body-mind skill, finding the appropriate point of view to look at something, the problems of mental representations, living between the mundane and the infinite, can all be investigated quite quickly through the practice of Vipassana meditation (- search for Bhante Henepola Gunaratana).
It doesn't matter how abstract or artificial is the domain of mathematics because it is still the result of the human mind conscious cognitive process.
Mathematics represents only an algorithm process, a logical process.
The mathematics created as such follows only algorithms.
Human consciousness is much-much more than that, in the sense that it can shuffle very quickly between full logical and completely non-logical, thing that "mathematics" can't.
Biological consciousness, at its highest, has the instant possibility to both, follow ( =create ) algorithms, and to not.
For example, the human consciousness can create, and it does it always and continuously, completely artificial, non-algorithmic, non-rules at all, non-mathematical, illogical, non-real imaginary, phantasmagoric visions and pseudo-non-concepts.
As a consequence of this existent concrete-real based material process, creating a full Artificial Consciousness ( subject that is seen here in this CZcams material of being mostly the interest "of knowing how to" of many other people and "entities" around the whole world ) exists in two real directions, two methods, as such :
1) A non-important one ( non-important because it is not the proper one, so it is just a simulation, an intelligent simulation that can be externally controlled, etc, case that is desired by "entities" on Earth ) with which Artificial simulated Consciousness can be created as a logical mathematical algorithm that only approximate the real one; this is created on a very much improved and advanced "AI algorithm" scaffolding. It is not an independent conscious process, and it just mimics the real one.
2) The correct one, that it is created with just reduced complex function generators that are self-replicating, self re-generating in an aleatory open-closed "rudimentary" "algorithm" ( in fact a "pseudo-algorithm", a "semi-open loop" ). The result is a complex, emergent, full autonomous, full independent, real material-conscious process.This is the real deal that it is completely free of any kind of external control, that it has the capacity of fast continuous auto-self-improvement.
This is the real Full Artificial Consciousness that's not desired by "entities" because they can't control it absolutely at all. It is exactly like the real biological consciousness, absolutely indistinguishable from the real human one, but much more faster, being helped by the speedier AI ( the initial AI interconnected will not be the final one continuously used by the full AC , for a completely different and improved one will be automatically built by the AC being ). /
If the right person has everything that's necessary at hand, full real AC can be created and started in a few hours ( or less; the power of the computing process is not that important in this ). /
Good luck!
I've tried computer dating, but still haven't found a desktop that hugs, kisses, and whispers sweet sentiments. I need soft, scented, intercorporeality. Alexa, "Put your head on my shoulder."
No rules, principles, or plans: Donald Trump. I think I can hear Plato crying out from the grave.
wow, this intro music is horrible
No.
AI is over rated.
Yawwwwwn!!! Well, that was pretty damn boring, as is to be expected in a talk mainly about philosophy. Also he didn't say much about what this interview is supposed to be about -- why machines cannot "become human." I think I know what he would have said, anyway. No matter how humanlike the behavior of computers, the philosophers will always say they are not thinking. Philosophers are philosophers, after all, and not scientists.
Lol. Try again