Terren, I agree. Searle's responses are inadequate, and the whole thought experiment fails to prove his point. I think it also fails to prove your point, for the same reason.
--Abram On 8/5/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Neither of those objections apply to what I'm saying. I agree that the > system as a whole does not have understanding, but that's not what I'm > asserting. I making the specific claim that an emergent aspect of the system > is the agent of understanding. The brain simulator defense suffers the same > problem, that Searle does not adequately address the role of emergence. > > Terren > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:07 PM >> 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/?&; >> 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
