https://github.com/tbates/hilbert-for-human-science
A list of Hilbert style problems for the science of humans
https://github.com/tbates/hilbert-for-human-science
Last synced: 5 months ago
JSON representation
A list of Hilbert style problems for the science of humans
- Host: GitHub
- URL: https://github.com/tbates/hilbert-for-human-science
- Owner: tbates
- License: cc0-1.0
- Created: 2020-05-04T11:28:51.000Z (about 6 years ago)
- Default Branch: master
- Last Pushed: 2020-05-04T20:57:36.000Z (about 6 years ago)
- Last Synced: 2025-06-04T17:45:21.959Z (about 1 year ago)
- Size: 10.7 KB
- Stars: 0
- Watchers: 1
- Forks: 0
- Open Issues: 0
-
Metadata Files:
- Readme: README.md
- License: LICENSE
Awesome Lists containing this project
README
# Hilbert-for-Human-Science
Lockdown task: write the human-science equivalent of Hilbert's [23 questions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_problems):
1. Can a program be written which when run is itself conscious?
* The running program, not some product that *results* from the program having run (such as the brain) must be conscious.
* Running the program in the human mind and double-dipping to claim your program is conscious, or similar gimmicks don't count.
* Definition of conscious: “what we have". This was a road block for Turing, who needed a test of whether an object was conscious. Here, we are wanting a proof.
2. Can a behavior be shown to result from an evolved module rather than a culture?
* Tinbergen proposed “emerges under all cultures" is one such, rightly awarded a Nobel to Tinbergen, but requires testing all cultures.
3. Conversely, can a behavior be shown to be cultural rather than resulting from a module?
4. Devise a formal test for whether a behavior is innate?
6. How can we know if a behavior is due to an unconscious motive or a conscious motive?
*notes*: If you're editing, think proving rather than corroborating for this list. For some an existence proof might be legitimate.