Revision 61821fe1bdf377fb3ce461b4876ffdba8fa69263 (click the page title to view the current version)
Changes from 61821fe1bdf377fb3ce461b4876ffdba8fa69263 to db474adb9b1414d1a3190d758159d3a9cb7665af
---
title: Questions for Discussion
---
**Under construction**
Please refer to the [Reading List]() for links and references.
# What if the machines take control?
R&N:51 call this a design flaw.
Can it be avoided under *bounded rationality*?
Note that design is an evolution, and final goals cannot be
predicted.
**Reading** (in order of priority)
1. R&N (Sec. 1.5).
1. Schaathun (2022)
1. Dick: *Do androids dream of electric sheep?*
1. Simon (1996:Ch. 6)
# Can machines think?
Debate: two students to argue *yes* and two students to argue *no*
**Reading** (in order of priority)
1. Epstein (2009:Chapters 1 and 3)
2. Weizenbaum (1976:Chapter 10)
3. Heinlein: *The Moon is a harsh Mistress*
# Eastern Philosophy
This module is biased towards Western philosophy,
drawing heavily on ideas developed in a long tradition of thought,
rooted in Ancient Greek philosophy and the Judeo-Christian
worldview. This is as it has to be. We are who we are, and
there is no other tradition where the module convener would
be qualified to convene the module.
However, a meeting with other traditions of thought would be very
valuable, if someone would be up for the challenge.
This is not an easy task, because we should be looking for
scientific rigour, and not a superficial approach.
However, if someone is familiar with philosophical traditions
of other cultures, you are welcome to take any question suggested
above or otherwise discussed in the module, and recast it within
your own cultural frame?
How is the relationship between Man and Machine viewed in Indian
philosophy?
How is intelligence viewed in Chines thought?
What constitutes reason and rationality in Persian tradition?
There are plenty of questions and plenty of viewpoints,
and note that I have no idea about the answers what-so-every.
Curiosity is all I can contribute.
Note that the task is scholarly. As a minimum, one has to
point to scholarly references when citing the great thinkers.
I do not expect references in a language I can read, but they
need to be disclosed honestly and accurately.
