As I said, I don’t believe that the brain does anything that can’t be measured.
I do wonder if we could ever find a concrete neurological measurement that will be more effective than understanding your mind from the inside. I could see it being enormously helpful in diagnoses, but I would prefer the chance to “exercise” my mind into better health before asking the technician to perform the mental equivalent of a gastric bypass.
I’m not proposing mysticism. Not suggesting that we exist outside of science.
Our brains are very different from computers in that our “circuitry” is formed by, and changes with, use. Such a system may not fully adjustable by external intervention. At best such intervention would be assistance for internal maintenance.
Given how much of subjective crap is involved in “understanding from the inside”, which may end up in an unverifiable illusion of understanding, I’d say yes.
Do you want an illusion, or something at least somewhat reliable?
Try doing a little research in the biology and especially neurology of perception. You’ll find that “illusion” isn’t as easy to avoid as you might think.
We essentially exist within a giant simulation by necessity - our very own matrix - but perpetrated by our mind due to the inadequacy of our sensory input. If you don’t think that fine running this simulation is desirable or possible, then that’s your choice to make.
Wise people recorded their subjective insight into this long, long ago. Cutting edge neuropsychological research confirms it.
You can’t escape “illusion”. We live in a construct by necessity. It’s very, very good. It can be refined further.
But horses are now a luxury and a pastime, not the day-to-day, erhm…“workhorse” of necessary transportation. Human-driven cars belong on racetracks and farmers’ fields, to be played with as toys, not as the backbone of modern mobility. There definitely will nevery be a “take all the cars off the road, and replace them with autonomous cars” moment, but aggressive legislation, and human-driven-car-unfriendly infrastructure design (as is done to transition cities from car-friendly to bike/pedestrian-friendly) can speed up the process by making the owning of a self-driven car more and more onerous.
As for the trolley problem, aren’t there already laws in place that guide decision-making about what drivers are expected to do in any situation? If I plow through three innocent civilians to save a squirrel, there are legal implications for that decision, no? How would current law respond if I valued my own life as a driver ahead of a child chasing a ball into the street?
It’s not an inevitable progression from horses to cars to driverless cars though, right? Communities can choose to regulate and subsidize a range of public transportation systems, including driverless cars … or not so much. There’s room to consider whether there are more climate-friendly and middle-income friendly options than driverless cars.
Yes, although I’m skeptical of the premise that driverless cars are inherently not climate- and middle-income friendly. If you posit some form of fleet sharing instead of individual ownership, you can imagine a pretty benign outcome.
The thing that gets me with the whole conversation is the attitude that because humans have been doing it wrong, that a planned system to replace it is somehow inevitable.
@HMSGoose I understand completely that design of infrastructure in cities can make self driving cars a reality faster. I live in the US west though. We have vast areas of freeway where we should probably have trains instead, but that is the infrastructure that exists. We also have vast areas where any city dweller would make the statement that the land was “unpopulated”. I’m not sure how you design the infrastructure around those areas to make people feel driving is a nuisance and I also don’t see any major effort going on to create alternative transportation in those areas.
I suppose it might work if not driving your own car could be made trendy. Sort of in the way people have been convinced they “need” an SUV because they have 1.5 kids and it snows sometimes.
Even electronic sensors can be prone to many kinds of “illusions”. They suck too, just generally a bit less, and a bit more reliably, than the biological ones.
Any system with input sensors is like that.
You can get only so far before you have to scrap it and try again with a better platform.
“Wise people” wrote a lot of things. Much of that turned out to be crap. It’d be improbable, at that volume, if something didn’t turn out to be somewhat on the mark.
Every machine that relies on inputs lives in an illusion. A lot of electronic warfare gear is built around creating such illusions. Same goes for conventional camouflage, when aimed at humans. Same goes for information itself, in the field of advertising/propaganda/PR.
It’s a heap of crap and it stinks.
It has to be scrapped and replaced by something that can be actually somewhat good.
Separate response for the legal question.Who is the driver now that the car is driving itself, and do you think current laws are really set up to assign liability in such a situation?
