Abram, If that's your response then we don't actually agree.
I agree that the Chinese Room does not disprove strong AI, but I think it is a valid critique for purely logical or non-grounded approaches. Why do you think the critique fails on that level? Anyone else who rejects the Chinese Room care to explain why? (I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but that should only make it easier to point to references that clearly demolish the arguments. It should be noted however that relatively recent advances regarding complexity and emergence aren't quite as well hashed out with respect to the Chinese Room. In the document you linked to, mention of emergence didn't come until a 2002 reference attributed to Kurzweil.) If you can't explain your dismissal of the Chinese Room, it only reinforces my earlier point that some of you who are working on AI aren't doing your homework with the philosophy. It's ok to reject the Chinese Room, so long as you have arguments to do it (and if you do, I'm all ears!) But if you don't think the philosophy is important, then you're more than likely doing Cargo Cult AI. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) 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, 9:49 PM > 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 > ------------------------------------------- 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
