On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:09:42 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > 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. >
Multiple values of pixels aren't characters though. No pixels are even necessary - which is why I brought up the OCR file emulator. The OCR will interpolate just as well from hexadecimal code as it would from adjacent pixels in bitmap. This is relevant because if we can see that computation can only offer us approximations of real numbers, or real circles, then we could only expect that it could offer an approximation of sense - which doesn't work for sense, because it is that which cannot be approximated or generalized. It is 100% proprietary because it is the principle through which privacy itself is defined. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> 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. > Not without a driver to convert the meaningless patterns of bits into something that your visual cortex expects to see. If you used that same driver on a person who had been blind since birth, they would not be able to see, and what they would feel would not likely have the same meaning. Blindsight tells us that information processing can occur without any personal aesthetic experience, so there is no reason at all to give the benefit of the doubt to a CPU that its processing is clothed in any sensory qualia, let alone some specific human qualia. > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. > I agree. > > >> 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? > Our intuitions may not have evolved at all. Survival and propagation could easily be mindless and automatic. Aesthetic sense cannot possibly contribute to survival or propagation, especially if we doubt the effectiveness of free will in the public world. Reasoned thought is a narrow subset of consciousness, one which employs objectivity - i.e. the intentional screening out of subjective contamination. Why would we expect that to be an appropriate instrument to find consciousness? Craig > 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.
