WILL ROBOTS BE ABLE TO THINK AND FEEL?

A lecture by
Valdemar W. Setzer
Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of São Paulo, Brazil;
member of the São Paulo State Scademy of Sciences and of the Anthroposophic Society in Brazil
www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer – this version: Aug. 13, 2023
See the ppt presentation of this lecture

1. Aug. 12, 2023, remote lecture for the MysTech 2023 Conference, and interested people. Info: Frank | CFAE Media support att cfae dot us. Assessment form: https://bit.ly/3qiHbhP.
Questions: [1] What were the most important things that you have learned? [2] What are the biggest remaining doubts? [3] Comments. [4] What is your degree of satisfaction with this lecture? (1 - very unsatisfied, 5 - very satisfied): 100% of 5. [5] Did you learn new things? 100% of yes. My comments are preceeded by COMM.

1. [1] The comprehensiveness of your view presented - the highlight for me was the words you used for how you characterized the relationship of thinking to perception seeking to establish an approachable way for penetrating Steiner's thought - basically connecting to concept...and the background for that. [2] I always have them. [3] Great presentation thank.. COMM.: Yes, I always try to bring clear and verifiable ideas.
2. [1] Thank you so much for helping me define and articulate what AI cannot accomplish in its mimicry of human intelligence. Some of the points you mentioned I had begun to vaguely identify, but your presentation helped bring these points into clarity and focus. This is probably the most important area of clear thinking needed in our time. [2] I can't think of anything that was left unsaid. [3] {Empty} COMM.: Try to examine the ppt presentation (suggestions are welcom!)
3. [1] I found your analysis interesting and useful- the distinction between data and information- the sense that AI will never reach the potential being discussed - that it is Science Fiction. [2] In many of the lectures, Rudolph Steiner is taken as absolutely true and foundational- that one may not deviate from what he taught- all has to be consistent and supportive. I wonder if alive today he would agree that he was infallible- that the info was a true and complete reflection of the Akashic Record so not to be questioned. All of the speakers quoted him and referred to him that way. [3] I also appreciated the distinction between what we do with our brains and what is not done there but in a spiritual context- Thinking, Feeling, Will- again per Steiner, but seems possible. Some interesting research has come out by anesthesiologists who see the brain go dark- totally out, yet the person wakes up with full memory. They think maybe it is stored and retrievable from Microtubules within the cells. I heard a singer of complicated Broadway tunes who could recall maybe 500 songs perfectly and instantly say that he didn't think they were in his brain. COMM.: The fact is that Steiner's view of the word (Weltaschauung) has the following characteristics: 1. It is incredibly extensive, covering a huge portion of our life, history, philosophy, arts, etc. (There has been some calculation of how many pages are there in the 350 volumes with his writings and lectures: 89,000!) 2. It is consistent - there are logical contradictions. 3. It is formulated through concepts, directed to the understanding, albeit using images (some difficult to grasp) in many instances, because the spiritual world is totally different from our physical one. 4. It has successful applications. 5. It does not contradict any scientific fact (but may contradict scientific judgements, speculations). Most of it touches the heart of someone seeking the spirit.
   All this makes Anthroposophy a good theory, and inspiring confidence. So, the tendency is to admit (ideally as a hypothesis, as he suggested) that his revelations were true. But in my lecture I brought some ideas that are mine. I tried to show that thinking, feeling and willing cannot be originated in the brain, using common personal experiences and common reasoning. Some experiences are subjective-objective, e.g. everybody feels a personal sensation like the taste of an apple, but everyone familiar with apples will say that it is an apple (objectiveness). In the same way, after-image colors are also subjective-objective: they are generated by our vision system, but recognized as the same by everyone with a healthy vision system (e.g. green-pink, yellow-violet, orange-blue, etc.). The microtubules (with quantum effects) in the brain is a theory advanced by the great Roger Penrose. It is a speculation, not a scientific fact. He said that what happens in the brain is not computable, but in my opinion he did not advance to the point of recognizing that there must be some non-physical phenomena associated with our mental capacities.