2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > On Feb 7, 3:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > > > > > On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be > > > > seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain, > > > > "I" can answer all question you ask to Einstein, > > > > > You're assuming that a brain can be emulated in the first place. If > > > that were true, there is no need to have the thought experiment. > > > > You're assuming that a brain can't be emulated in the first place. If > that > > were true, there is no need to have the thought experiment. > > > > Stupid thought, stupid conclusion Craig Weinberg as usual. > > I'm not assuming that it can't be emulated, I am only assuming an > appropriately skeptical stance - especially since brain emulation has > never occurred in reality. I say that it is not proven that brains can > be emulated, that's all. If the refutation of the Chinese Room is > contingent upon the assumption that brains can be emulated than it's a > religious faith. > > My point is that the Chinese Room doesn't require a belief or > disbelief in brain emulation, it only demonstrates the difference > between trivial computation and personal understanding...something > which comp is in pathological denial of. > > No, the chinese room refute the room consciousness by arguing that the only thing conscious is the human in the room and obviously he does not understand chinese. In your answer to john you replaced the human by the CPU and that's correct... And no one has ever argue that the CPU is conscious... It's the execution of the program which is conscious... ie: the man only does the execution, it is a part of the system, not the whole system... what is conscious is the program executed by the man following the book instruction. I see no problem to have unconscious part of a conscious thing, in fact that's what happen in our brain, only has a whole (us) can we talk about it being conscious.
Anyway a thought experiment per se can't determine if AI is possible or not... so you it's not correct to say " You're assuming that a brain can be emulated blabla or the opposite", it's plain wrong. Quentin > Craig > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
