On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:46:52 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:58:33 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "If you think about your own vision, you can see millions of pixels >>>>>> constantly, you are aware of the full picture, but a computer can't do >>>>>> that, the cpu can only know about 32 or 64 pixels, eventually multiplied >>>>>> by >>>>>> number of kernels, but it see them as single bit's so in reality the >>>>>> can't >>>>>> be conscious of a full picture, not even of the full color at a single >>>>>> pixel. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> He is making the same mistake Searle did regarding the Chinese room. >>>> He is conflating what the CPU can see at one time (analogous to rule >>>> follower in Chinese room) with what the program can know. Consider the >>>> program of a neural network: it can be processed by a sequentially >>>> operating CPU processing one connection at a time, but the simulated >>>> network itself can see any arbitrary number of inputs at once. >>>> >>>> How do he propose OCR software can recognize letters if it can only see >>>> a single pixel at a time? >>>> >>> >>> Who says OCR software can recognize letters? >>> >> >> The people who buy such software and don't return it. >> >> >>> All that it needs to do is execute some algorithm sequentially and >>> blindly against a table of expected values. >>> >> >> It's a little more sophisticated than that. There are CAPTCHA defeating >> OCR programs that recognize letters distorted in ways they have never >> previously seen before: >> http://www.slideshare.net/**rachelshadoan/machine-** >> learning-methods-for-captcha-**recognition<http://www.slideshare.net/rachelshadoan/machine-learning-methods-for-captcha-recognition> >> >> You need more than a simple look up table for that capability. >> > > I don't deny that, but you still only need a more sophisticated algorithm, > you don't need to 'see' anything or understand characters. > To recognize a character (in most algorithms that do so) must consider multiple the values of pixels at once, which was the whole point of me bringing up this example. > >> >> >>> There need not be any recognition of the character as a character at at >>> all, let alone any "seeing". A program could convert a Word document into >>> an input file for an OCR program without there ever being any optical >>> activity - no camera, no screen caps, no monitor or printer at all. >>> Completely in the dark, the bits of the Word file could be converted into >>> the bits of an emulated optical scan, and presto, invisible optics. >>> >> >> Sounds like what goes on when someone dreams in the dark. >> > > If that were the case then we would not need a video screen, we could > simply look at the part of the computer where the chip is showing videos to > itself and put a big magnifying glass on it. > > You could plug the electronics of the computer up to your optic nerve in a way that let you see the screen without any photons having to enter your eyes at all. > >> >>> >>> Searle wasn't wrong. The whole point of the Chinese Room is to point out >>> that computation is a disconnected, anesthetic function which is >>> accomplished with no need for understanding of larger contexts. >>> >> >> It doesn't point out anything, it is an intuition pump ( >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Intuition_pump<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump>) >> that succeeds in swaying people to an apparently obvious conclusion (if >> they don't think too deeply about it). >> > > Intuition pumps are exactly what are needed to understand consciousness. > They can be used and misused. > The conclusion is obvious because the alternative is absurd, and the > absurdity stems from trying to project public physics into the realm of > private physics. It is a category error and the Chinese Room demonstrates > that. > What makes you so sure that intuition is not the only way to find > consciousness? > > Our intuitions were evolved to suit our survival and propagation, why should we expect them to be better at locating consciousness than reasoned thought? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
