Mark Waser wrote:
The critical point that most people miss -- and what is really important for this list (and why people shouldn't blindly dismiss Searle) is that it is *intentionality* that defines "understanding". If a system has goals/intentions and it's actions are modified by the external world (i.e. it is grounded), then, to the extent to which it's actions are *effectively* modified (as judged in relation to it's intentions) is the extent to which it "understands". The most important feature of an AGI is that it has goals and that it modifies it's behavior (and learns) in order to reach them. The Chinese Room is incapable of these behaviors since it has no desires.
I think this is an excellent point, so long as you're careful to define "intention" simply in terms of goals that the system is attempting to satisfy/maximize, and not in terms of conscious desires. As you point out, the former provides a context in which to define understanding and to measure it. The latter leads off into further undefined terms and concepts -- I mention this rather than just agreeing outright mainly because of your use of the word "desire" in the last sentence, which /could/ be interpreted anthropomorphically.
------------------------------------------- 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
