Terren, You and I could agree. But the Chinese Room, as a thought experiment, is supposed to refute that.
The reply you are giving is very similar to the "Systems Reply": http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#4.1 "Searle's response to the Systems Reply is simple: in principle, the man can internalize the entire system, memorizing all the instructions, doing all the calculations in his head. He could then leave the room and wander outdoors, perhaps even conversing in Chinese. But he still would have no way to attach "any meaning to the formal symbols". The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese. For example, he would not know the meaning of the Chinese word for hamburger. He still cannot get semantics from syntax. (See below the section on Syntax and Semantics)." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#4.3 could also be taken to apply to your response, but I won't quote that one. Sincerely, Abram Demski On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Chinese Room argument counters only the assertion that the computational > mechanism that manipulates symbols is capable of understanding. But in more > sophisticated approaches to AGI, the computational mechanism is not the > agent, it's merely a platform. > > Take the OpenCog design. See in particular: > > http://www.opencog.org/wiki/OpenCogPrime:EmergenceOverview > > The 'phenomenal self' emerges as a consequence of interaction with the > environment and the continuous search for explanations of behavior (including > its own). It is this emergent self that is the agent of understanding. The > computational framework that facilitates the interaction is merely a > platform. Nobody would say that the computer manipulating the symbols has > understanding (in accordance with the Chinese Room), but it is possible that > someday we'd agree that OpenCog the *agent* has achieved it. > > Terren > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The original argument was put forward to show that all AI >> is >> impossible, not just symbolic AI. I can see why someone >> might take it >> the other way, but I don't think it works; the >> complicated instruction >> books inside the room could implement either a symbolic AI >> or a >> nonsymbolic one. The details would need to be changed; >> perhaps you >> want video input rather than chinese input, and >> robot-control as >> output. And we'd need some silly trick like a timewarp >> to make the >> robot move in real time. But I think Searle would still >> stick to his >> guns and say that the person in the room does not >> comprehend the data >> he is manipulating (the 1s and 0s from the video feed), >> therefore no >> understanding occurs. >> >> So, Terren, in my opinion you should drop the chinese room >> in >> connection with your argument. It simply has too much >> historical >> baggage. >> >> -Abram >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> agi >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >> Modify Your Subscription: >> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
