Russell suggests that the rational thinking is still underestimated by many. The root cause for this underestimation comes, basically, from the fact that many people still believe that there is “something” inherent to the emotional thinking that we value more and hence, regardless of how strong our rational thinking might be, we will value far more our emotions. This statement is not taken as extreme as I am putting it, but still, is the basis for some of the unhappiness caused by our decisions, especially those where we do not refrain our impulse (feelings).
Kasparov, in his article about chess and computers says that we, as humans, have failed (yet) to develop a computer that can think as humans, basically because deep blue beat him at chess (and even 90% of the current chess games that you will install in your computer will defeat many grand masters) using brute force…using the capacity of analysing billions of combinations and assigning a value to the piece based on its position and potential threat in the game.
The whole point of the discussion remains. Aren’t we underestimating the value of rational thinking? Could a computer have a more happy life than an intelligent man?
Based on brute force, by storing billions of decision outcomes throughout the human life (in history, love, politics, business and even in diet??). Then you will only need your feelings to enjoy the ride (the computer will even take decisions that will create certain “unhappiness” so you, as a stupid human being, will not get used to happiness too quickly and also to help you value the good decisions)
Comments?
1 comentario:
Hi Willy The Fog! I liked your post but let me tell you something. I don't see your point. If we were to delegate our decissions to a computer, for instance, we will be missing the most important thing which makes us different from animals: feelings and emotions. And above all, passion, what would life be without passion?
You should write more about it!
Brgds
Publicar un comentario