[ExI] Safety of human-like motivation systems [WAS Re: Oxford scientists...]

[Damien Broderick]

On 2/4/2011 2:29 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> A human-like cognitive system running on a computer has nothing whatever
> to do with darwinian evolution.  It is not a "darwinian machine" because
> that phrase "darwinian machine" is semantically empty.  There is no such
> property "darwinian" that can be used here, except the trivial property
>
> "Darwinian" ==  "System that resembles, in structure, another system
>                   that was originally designed by a darwinian process"
>
> That definition is trivial because nothing follows from it.

I take it you're not impressed by the quite clearly darwinian models 
sketched by, say, Calvin or Edelman? I find their ideas quite 
provocative and what follows from them is a novel explanation of 
cognition and inventiveness. It might be wrong, and maybe by now has 
been proved to be wrong, but I haven't seen those refutations. What were 
they?

Damen Broderick