Terren, Are you ignoring my reply on purpose, or accidentally? If it is on purpose, that is fine, but if it is by accident then the original message is replicated below. -Abram
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Abram, >> >> If that's your response then we don't actually agree. > > Sorry, I meant "I agree that Searle's responses are inadequate". > >> >> 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 explained somewhat in my first reply to this thread. Basically, as I > understand you, you are saying that the original chinese room does not > have understanding, but if we modify the argument to connect it up to > a robot with adequate senses, it could have understanding (if the > human inside could work fast enough to show it). But, if I am willing > to grant that such a robot has understanding (despite the human > controller having no understanding of the data being manipulated), > then I may very well be willing to grant that the original Chinese > room has understanding (as I am willing to grant). > > I do distrust some philosophy, but other issues I think are very > important. For example, I am very interested in the foundations of > mathematics. > > -Abram > >> >> (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/?&; >> 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
