Interview with Robert Gordon (Ph.D., Columbia). Discussed topics include his academic career in philosophy and views on the simulation theory of mind.

I show the sort of solution currently commonly imagined as fitting the hard problem of consciousness is impossible to reach. The category mistake implicit in the problem can be dealt with, but the reformulated version will still never reach complete predictive ability and intuitiveness. Applications of this proof of impossibility and attempts by others to solve the hard problem are discussed. An overarching phenomenological-cognitive framework is proposed, partially to show the possibilities which are still open for those interested in discovering (...) ‘consciousness-processes’. (shrink)

Throughout the 20th century, market capitalism was defended on parallel grounds. First, it promotes freedom by enabling individuals to exploit their own property and labor-power; second, it facilitates an efficient allocation and use of resources. Recently, however, both defenses have begun to unravel—as capitalism has moved into its “platform” phase. Today, the pursuit of allocative efficiency, bolstered by pervasive data surveillance, often undermines individual freedom rather than promoting it. And more fundamentally, the very idea that markets are necessary to achieve (...) allocative efficiency has come under strain. Even supposing, for argument’s sake, that the claim was true in the early 20th century when von Mises and Hayek pioneered it, advances in computing have rekindled the old “socialist calculation” debate. And this time around, markets—as information technology—are unlikely to have the upper hand. -/- All of this, we argue, raises an important set of governance questions regarding the political economy of the future. We focus on two: How much should our economic system prioritize freedom, and to what extent should it rely on markets? The arc of platform capitalism bends, increasingly, toward a system that neither prioritizes freedom nor relies on markets. And the dominant critical response, exemplified by Shoshana Zuboff’s work, has been to call for a restoration of market capitalism. Longer term, however, we believe it would be more productive to think about how “postmarket” economic arrangements might promote freedom—or better yet, autonomy—even more effectively than markets, and to determine the practical steps necessary to realize that possibility. (shrink)

The era of AI-based decision-making fast approaches, and anxiety is mounting about when, and why, we should keep “humans in the loop” (“HITL”). Thus far, commentary has focused primarily on two questions: whether, and when, keeping humans involved will improve the results of decision-making (making them safer or more accurate), and whether, and when, non-accuracy-related values—legitimacy, dignity, and so forth—are vindicated by the inclusion of humans in decision-making. Here, we take up a related but distinct question, which has eluded the (...) scholarship thus far: does it matter if humans appear to be in the loop of decision-making, independent from whether they actually are? In other words, what is stake in the disjunction between whether humans in fact have ultimate authority over decision-making versus whether humans merely seem, from the outside, to have such authority? Our argument proceeds in four parts. First, we build our formal model, enriching the HITL question to include not only whether humans are actually in the loop of decision-making, but also whether they appear to be so. Second, we describe situations in which the actuality and appearance of HITL align: those that seem to involve human judgment and actually do, and those that seem automated and actually are. Third, we explore instances of misalignment: situations in which systems that seem to involve human judgment actually do not, and situations in which systems that hold themselves out as automated actually rely on humans operating “behind the curtain.” Fourth, we examine the normative issues that result from HITL misalignment, arguing that it challenges individual decision-making about automated systems and complicates collective governance of automation. (shrink)

Văn hóa thặng dư sinh thái là tập hợp các thái độ, giá trị, niềm tin và hành vi bảo vệ và tôn tạo môi trường được chia sẻ bởi một cộng đồng nhằm giảm tác động tiêu cực của con người tới môi trường, giúp bảo tồn và phục hồi thiên nhiên [1]. Đây được xem là giải pháp để con người có thể sống hòa hợp với thiên nhiên và hướng tới bảo vệ môi trường một cách dài (...) hạn và bền vững. (shrink)

Văn hóa thặng dư sinh thái là tập hợp các thái độ, giá trị, niềm tin và hành vi bảo vệ và tôn tạo môi trường được chia sẻ bởi một cộng đồng nhằm giảm tác động tiêu cực của con người tới môi trường, giúp bảo tồn và phục hồi thiên nhiên. Đây được xem là giải pháp để con người có thể sống hòa hợp với thiên nhiên và hướng tới bảo vệ môi trường một cách dài hạn (...) và bền vững. Việc phổ biến và xây dựng văn hóa thặng dư môi trường trên quy mô dân số lớn hẳn sẽ gặp nhiều khó khăn, nhưng không phải là không thể. Thành phố Kiel – có dân số xấp xỉ 250 nghìn người và cũng là thành phố đầu tiên của Đức nhận được chứng nhận Zero Waste (Không Rác thải) từ tổ chức Zero Watse Eurpoe (Không Rác thải Châu Âu) – là một ví dụ điển hình. (shrink)