>> But you're back to judging internal processes by external behavior.
I have nothing against doing that. Its exactly what I in fact did.
Where there are no behavioral differences from which we can identify internal
differences, we would not know whether they were cognitively different or the
same. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. And that certainly leads to the
problem of other minds, say between children learning grammar.
But where we can do that, say between this grammar system and children or Deep
Blue and Kasperov, it follows that they are definitely not cognitively similar
regardless of how they perform because we can discern internal differences from
external behavior.
We can only say Deep Blue is thinking if we broaden the definition of thinking.
Well, I can show that Im gorgeous if I broaden the definition of gorgeous. We
don't learn anything about thought by changing its definition.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:52:39 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:41 PM, chris peck
wrote:
>> Unfortunately we don't even have that
example, because we don't know how we think.
We know that a certain set of mistakes are ubiquitous when
learning grammer. (overgeneralising for example). Cats. dogs.
hamsters. ... Sheeps. deers. etc.
And we know the computer system didn't make these mistakes.
Whether a computer made those mistakes would obviously depend on
it's software and one could obviously write software that would over
generalize and in fact neural network classifiers often over
generalize.
But you're back to judging internal processes by external behavior.
Brent
Thats all we need to know to say that the two systems are not
the same. All we need to know to say the computer was not doing
what children do.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:35:05 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/24/2013 8:09 PM, chris
peck wrote:
At
this juncture then it becomes moot whether the computer is
learning or thinking about grammar. It is a matter of
philosophical taste. It certainly isn't learning or thinking
as we learnt or thought when learning grammar. The way we
cognate is the only example we have of cognition that we
know is genuine.
Unfortunately we
don't even have that example, because we don't know how we
think.
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
