Hi Valentina,
I think the distinction you draw between the two kinds of understanding is
illusory. Mutual human experience is also an emergent phenomenon. Anyway,
that's not the point of the Chinese Room argument, which doesn't say that a
computer understands symbols in a different way than humans, it says that a
computer has no understanding, period.
Terren
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My view is that the problem with the Chinese Room argument is precisely the
manner in which it uses the word 'understanding'. It is implied that in this
context this word refers to mutual human experience. Understanding has another
meaning, namely the emergent process some of you described, which can happen in
a computer in a different way from the way it happens in a human being. In fact
notice that the experiment says that the computer will not understand chinese
the way humans do. Therefore it implies the first meaning, not the second.
Regarding grounding, I think that any intelligence has to collect data from
somewhere in order to lear. Where it collects it from will determine the type
of intelligence it is. Collecting stories is still a way of collecting
information, but such an intelligence will never be able to move in the real
world, as it has no clue regarding it. On the other hand an intelligence who
learns by moving in the real world, yet has never read anything, will gather no
information from a book.
agi | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
