So you are arguing that a computer program can not be defined solely
in terms of computational processes over formally defined elements?
No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that Searle said (and I agree) that
a computer program that *only* manipulated formally defined elements without
intention or altering itself could not reach strong AI.
Computers could react to and interact with input back in the day when
Searle wrote his book.
Yes. But the Chinese Room does *not* alter itself in response to input or
add to it's knowledge.
A computer program is a computational process over formally defined
elements even if is able to build complex and sensitive structures of
knowledge about its IO data environment through its interactions with
it.
Yes. This is why I believe that a computer program can achieve strong AI.
This is a subtle argument that cannot be dismissed with an appeal
to a hidden presumption of the human dominion over understanding or by
fixing it to some primitive theory about AI which was unable to learn
through trial and error.
I was not dismissing the argument and certainly not making a presumption of
human dominion over understanding. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm not
quite sure why you believe that I did. Could you tell me which of my
phrases caused you to believe that I did?
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bromer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This has been a great thread!
Actually, if you read Searle's original paper, I think that you will find
that he... is *not* meaning to argue against the
possibility of strong AI (since he makes repeated references to human as
machines) but merely against the possibility of strong AI in machines
where
"the operation of the machine is defined solely in terms of computational
processes over formally defined elements" (which was the current state of
the art in AI when he was arguing against it -- unlike today where there
are
a number of systems which don't require axiomatic reasoning over formally
defined elements). There's also the trick that Chinese Room is
assumed/programmed to be 100% omniscient/correct in it's required domain.
So you are arguing that a computer program can not be defined solely
in terms of computational processes over formally defined elements?
Computers could react to and interact with input back in the day when
Searle wrote his book.
A computer program is a computational process over formally defined
elements even if is able to build complex and sensitive structures of
knowledge about its IO data environment through its interactions with
it. This is a subtle argument that cannot be dismissed with an appeal
to a hidden presumption of the human dominion over understanding or by
fixing it to some primitive theory about AI which was unable to learn
through trial and error.
Jim Bromer
-------------------------------------------
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
