But....
Now you have me really confused, because Searle's attack would have
targetted your approach, my approach and Ben's approach equally: none
of us have moved on from the position he was attacking!
A debate about Searle is not really something I want to get into,
unfortunately, because Searle's claims have changed over the years and
(much, much worse) they were never very coherent even at the beginning.
Broadly speaking Searle would ask you if you are building your AI out
of real neurons, and if you answer "no" he will say it does not
understand anything, it is just an empty shell that lacks something we
have, and that it is not conscious. As far as I can see, that puts all
of us out inthe cold.
When you say that people have moved beyond the "simplistic GOFAI
symbol-as-intelligence idea", that looks like you are talking about
different issues entirely. Perhaps symbol grounding, perhaps other
issues. I think all of us have moved on from most of the "simplistic
GOFAI ideas".
Richard Loosemore
John Scanlon wrote:
I was referring to the kind of symbol-system hypothesis that Searle's
Chinese room and Hubert Dreyfus's writings attack, and wondering if
there were still people following the approach they attacked. So the
responses I've gotten (and lack thereof) are heartening. Symbols, in
the form of language, are a very important part of the system (Gnoljinn)
I'm developing. These symbols will be a crucial component for abstract
thinking (once I get that far). It's good to hear that researchers now
have moved beyond the simplistic GOFAI symbol-as-intelligence idea --
more people with more advanced ideas to share thoughts with.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
John,
The problem is that your phrases below have been used by people I
completely disagree with (John Searle) and also by people I completely
agree with (Doug Hofstadter) .... in different contexts, they mean
totally different things.
I am not quite sure how it bears on the quote of mine below, but for
the record I don't have anything much against the physical symbol
system hypothesis per se (even though I also agree with Stevan
Harnad), but I do have a problem with people who think that symbols
are passive, structureless objects manipulated by something external.
(And my objection is not so much that it is nakedly wrong, as that it
diabolically inconsistent with a lot of stuff, and untested).
From what you write, I think it was the latter issue that you were
referring to.
Richard Loosemore.
John Scanlon wrote:
I get the impression that a lot of people interested in AI still
believe that the mental manipulation of symbols is equivalent to
thought. As many other people understand now, symbol-manipulation is
not thought. Instead, symbols can be manipulated by thought to solve
various problems that can be solved that way. Intelligence is
primary to the ability to use language -- why we recognize in animals
a certain level of intelligence and sentience. The ability to use
symbols and language at the human level depends on more
sophisticated, specialized functions in the brain than are found in
other earthly species, but the symbol-manipulation is still not
thought -- it is done by thought.
My question is: am I wrong that there are still people out there
that buy the symbol-system hypothesis? including the idea that a
system based on the mechanical manipulation of statements in logic,
without a foundation of primary intelligence to support it, can
produce thought?
This comment from Richard Loosemore made me think about this question:
(I can't tell from this if he supports the symbol-system hypothesis
or not.)
> Whether committed to human-inspired AI, or to anti-human ;-)
> Normative Rational AI, it was always some long-ago
> introspection that was the original source of the ideas that
> are now being formalized and implemented. Even logical,
> rational thought was noticed by the ancient Greek
> philosophers who looked inside themselves and wondered how it
> was that their thoughts could lead to conclusions about the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To
unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
