I hope there are soon some comments to this question. What do AI people think of the analysis - Marr's and nhamann? Is the history accurate? This there a reason for ignoring?

"Free will is nonsense"

It's not nonsense.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)

Right on. Free will is nonsense but morality is important. I see moral questions as questions that do not have a clear cut answer that can be found be consulting some rules (religious or not). We have to figure out what is the right thing to do. And we will be judged by how well we do it.

The Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap implies that it may very well be possible. I don't have the expertise to question their judgement in this matter.

As this review shows, WBE on the neuronal/synaptic level requires relatively modest increases in microscopy resolution, a less trivial development of automation for scanning and image processing, a research push at the problem of inferring functional properties of neurons and synapses, and relatively business-as-usual development of computational neuroscience models and computer hardware. This assumes that this is the appropriate level of description of the brain, and that we find ways of accurately simulating the subsystems that occur on this level. Conversely, pursuing this research agenda will also help detect whether there are low-level effects that have significant influence on higher level systems, requiring an increase in simulation and scanning resolution.

There do not appear to exist any obstacles to attempting to emulate an invertebrate organism today. We are still largely ignorant of the networks that make up the brains of even modestly complex organisms. Obtaining detailed anatomical information of a small brain appears entirely feasible and useful to neuroscience, and would be a critical first step towards WBE. Such a project would serve as both a proof of concept and a test bed for further development. If WBE is pursued successfully, at present it looks like the need for raw computing power for real-time simulation and funding for building large-scale automated scanning/processing facilities are the factors most likely to hold back large-scale simulations.

I figure when we have built an artificial kidney that works as well as a kidney, and an artificial heart that works as well as a heart, and an artificial pancreas that works as well as a pancreas - then it will be reasonable to know whether an artificial brain is a reasonable goal.

Building an artificial kidney requires both knowledge about how a kidney works, and the physical engineering skill to build an artificial kidney with the same structure. Unlike a kidney, an artificial brain can be implemented in software, so it's enough to only know how it works.

The comparison would be valid if by an "artificial brain" we meant a brain built out of biological neurons, but we don't.

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13401

So the effect exists, and appears to be used. If you remember the magic disconnected gates in the famous evolved circuit, I think it's very safe to say that it's used.

I figure when we have built an artificial kidney that works as well as a kidney, and an artificial heart that works as well as a heart, and an artificial pancreas that works as well as a pancreas - then it will be reasonable to know whether an artificial brain is a reasonable goal.

If we have figured out how to compute the weather accurately some weeks into the future - then we might know whether we can compute a much more complex system. If we had the foggiest idea of how the brain actually works - then we might know what level of approximation is good enough.

Don't hold your breath for a personal upload.

I seems to agree with your original list. I would phrase the free will one differently - both free will and determinism are useless concepts because we have no mechanism for contra-causality other than spirit-magic and we cannot predict our decisions even if they are causally produced.

You use the words "solved" and settled" here, but I think they have very different meanings. In particular I can think of two relevant definitions of "settled": first, that someone, somewhere, has the correct answer; but second, that the correct answer is widely accepted, uncontroversial, and someone ignorant of the field can easily discover it just by reading a textbook..

I think your examples fall into the first category but not the second. According to the PhilPapers survey, only 32% of philosophers "accept" physicalism (a further 20% were "leaning towards" it). Another presentation of the poll said that 73% of philosophers either "lean toward or accept atheism".

When you can't get even three quarters of a field to even "lean toward" a position, I don't think you can call that a "settled question" under the second definition, especially compared to science where hopefully 100% of astronomers would either "lean toward or accept" heliocentrism. And when I complain that philosophers cannot settle questions, I am mostly referring to that second definition.

I used to read LW but never commented. Then I had a change of heart when there was a post that in effect invited people to take a more active part. I commented often and even posted but the experience was not a happy one and I have gone back to only reading some items and commenting very rarely. I do not feel welcome nor feel completely rejected. There are a lot of reasons for the alienation in my case and the repeated return to PUA is one of them. But there are many other reason that are more important. In a sense PUA is political. Evolutionary psychology isn't, seduction itself isn't, communication skills aren't. I don't find Jesse Bering's pieces in the ScAm political. It is the treating of women and of sex as a sort of commodity that makes it seem political to me. It doesn't matter how you dress it up nicely - being treated as a commodity is degrading. On the other hand, something that I do not think is political at all but simply scientific, global warming is treated as a sort of taboo political question. Everything else can be discussed but not the biggest danger we face.