I’m woefully behind in this area, so I’m sure others have proposed this and then disposed of it. But here’s a question for the Moravek/Kurzweilians who think it’s obvious that if we model a brain’s 100B neurons in software, the computer is conscious: If we were to model an entire body’s molecules or atoms in software, would the computer now be alive?

By sheer coincidence, Steve Talbott’s fabulous newsletter today takes on Rodney Brooks’ new book, Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us. In particular, Talbott argues against the idea that humans are “just machines.” Talbott’s aim in this relatively brief essay is to remind us of how non-machine like we are as we look ever more closely at what’s “really” going on. And it’s not just quanta that are non-machine-like; cells themselves cannot be understood solely at the level of molecules:

Moss is one of many researchers looking at the complex chemical dynamics of the cell as a whole, and noting that there is no one-way chain of cause and effect determining the cell’s order. This order (which is passed from one generation to the next) is irreducibly manifested in the cell as a whole, with each part (including the DNA) being effect as well as cause.

I like that Talbott then broadens the question to: Why are we so willing to hear this? He proposes an answer:

In a society where the cry echoes from all sides, “You are nothing but a machine”, we can rightly ask whether what we are really hearing is “I sense that I am becoming nothing but a machine and, dammit all, I won’t tolerate anyone else being more than I am”.

I am a big fan of Talbott’s.

Rodney Brooks was staying at the same B&B as I was at a Pop!Tech conference a couple of years ago, and we had a drink together one night. I liked him a lot, and I think his approach to robotics is brilliant. He told me that night that he was thinking about investigating the nature of life. Looks like he’s headed in that direction.

Categories: Uncategorized dw