On 8 May 2015 at 19:14, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote: > > This is why I draw the comparison with the Chinese room. If all the >> intelligence is encoded in a book, then intuition says that book >> cannot be conscious. This intuition is undoubtedly right for the sorts >> of books we're used to. But for a book that is much, much larger than >> the visible universe (which it would have to be to encode the >> intelligence needed to answer the questions in Chinese as a lookup >> table), then I think that intuition is very much >> doubtful. Consequently, the Chinese Room argument fails. This was Dan >> Dennett's point, IIRC. >> > > No, because the chinese room use only the program of the chinese man, not > necessarily a giant look-up table. > > You don't need a huge look-up table (though I think that's how Searle implicitly described his set-up? ... it's been a long time since I last read "The Mind's Eye") ... if you have a book that tells you how to simulate the Chinese man, then *that *book will also be huge, and normal intuition will fail. Similarly with the "Einstein's Brain" book in DRH's fable.
-- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
