Abram, I think a simulated, grounded, embodied approach is the one exception to the otherwise correct Chinese Room (CR) argument. It is the keyhole through which we must pass to achieve strong AI.
The Novamente example I gave may qualify as such an exception (although the hybrid nature of grounded and ungrounded knowledge used in the design is a question mark for me), and does not invalidate the arguments against ungrounded approaches. The CR argument works for ungrounded approaches, because without grounding, the symbols to be manipulated have no meaning, except within an external context that is totally independent of and inaccessible to the processing engine. I believe for this to be further constructive, you have to show either 1) how an ungrounded symbolic approach does not apply to the CR argument, or 2) why, specifically, the argument fails to show that ungrounded approaches cannot achieve comprehension. Unfortunately, I have to take a break from the list (why are people cheering??). I will answer any further posts addressed to me in due time, but I have other commitments for the time being. Terren --- On Wed, 8/6/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 2:32 PM > Terren, > I agree that the emergence response shows where the flaw is > in the > Chinese Room argument. The argument fails, because although > understanding is not in the person or the instructions or > the physical > room as a whole, it emerges from the system. That being the > case, how > can the argument show that ungrounded AI does not work? > > I am not arguing for ungrounded AI, I just don't think > the chinese > room argument is a good argument against it. > > You say yourself that understanding could occur within the > original > Chinese Room experiment: > > "For instance, we may be simulating an agent that has > senses and can > effect actions, and has some kind of dynamic memory and > cognitive > architecture that allows it to process a kind of ongoing > experience. > The Novamente design is one that could presumably lead to > grounded > understanding [...]" > > Therefore, the Chinese Room argument is not an example of > symbolic AI > failing, by your own argument. Maybe it could be fixed or > extended to > argue against symbolic AI. However, it does not do so by > itself, and > in my opinion it would be clearer to come up with a > different argument > rather than fixing that one. > > -Abram Demski > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Terren Suydam > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Abram, > > > > Sorry, your message did slip through the cracks. I > intended to respond earlier... here goes. > > > > --- On Wed, 8/6/08, Abram Demski > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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). > > > > This is the crux of the emergence response to the > Chinese Room. The question boils down to: how is it possible > for the robot to have understanding but the processor not > to? > > > > The insight necessary to see that this is possible, is > that there are multiple and utterly independent levels of > description going on. On the local level you have the > processor, blindly following instructions, manipulating > data, and so on. At the global level, a simulation is going > on (whether it's a physical or virtual robot). In other > words, a simulated reality has *emerged* as a consequence of > executing a sophisticated program. The agent being simulated > and the virtual environment it is simulated in, are obeying > a set of rules that are totally orthogonal to the set of > rules at the local level. > > > > There is nothing in particular about what the > processor is doing at that local level of description that > facilitates understanding at the global level (not unlike > studying the behavior of individual neurons to try and > understand the global 'mind' phenomenon). > Understanding, rather, is a consequence of the global-level > description of the emergent entities and how they interact > with one another, and cannot be understood strictly in terms > of the local level. It's irreducible. > > > > For instance, we may be simulating an agent that has > senses and can effect actions, and has some kind of dynamic > memory and cognitive architecture that allows it to process > a kind of ongoing experience. The Novamente design is one > that could presumably lead to grounded understanding (I > assume, anyway, based on BG's assertions that it's > similar enough to OpenCog), because the design enables > (simulated) experience, and the ability to structure new > knowledge based ultimately on what it experiences (i.e. > grounding). You can argue that definition/mechanism of > understanding, and grounding, and so on, but that's a > separate argument. They key point is that it is a mistake to > in any way attribute the global phenomenon of understanding > by emergent agent to the local processor that is just > blindly executing instructions. > > > >> 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 > > > > Skepticism of the content of philosophy is certainly > justified, but skepticism of the need for proficiency in it > is not, if you're an AI researcher. > > > > Terren > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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
