On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is not just wrong it's STUPID. I > say this because it has 3 colossal flaws, just one would render it stupid > and 3 render it stupidity cubed: > > 1) It assumes that a small part of a system has all the properties of the > entire system. > > 2) It assumes that slowing down consciousness would not make things > strange and that strange things can not exist. Yes it's strange that a > room considered as a whole can be conscious, but it would also be strange > if the grey goo inside your head was slowed down by a factor of a hundred > thousand million billion trillion. > > 3) This is the stupidest reason of the lot. Searle wants to prove that > mechanical things may behave intelligently but only humans can be > conscious. Searle starts by showing successfully that the Chinese Room does > indeed behave intelligently, but then he concludes that no consciousness > was involved in the operation of that intelligent room. How does he reach > that conclusion? I will tell you. > > Searle assumes that mechanical things may behave intelligently but only > humans can be conscious, and it is perfectly true that the little man is > not aware of what's going on, therefore Searle concludes that consciousness > was not involved in that intelligence. Searle assumes that if consciousness > of Chinese exists anywhere in that room it can only be in the human and > since the human is not conscious of Chinese he concludes consciousness > was not involved. And by assuming the very thing he wants to prove he has > only succeeded in proving that he's an idiot. > And now let me tell you about Clark's Chinese Room: You are a professor of > Chinese Literature and are in a room with me and the great Chinese > Philosopher and Poet Laozi. Laozi writes something in his native language > on a paper and hands it to me. I walk 10 feet and give it to you. You read > the paper and are impressed with the wisdom of the message and the beauty > of its language. Now I tell you that I don't know a word of Chinese; can > you find any deep philosophical implications from that fact? I believe > Clark's Chinese Room is every bit as profound as Searle's Chinese Room. Not > very. > > John K clark >
I would say that one could have a Jupiter planet-sized network of Intel® Core™ processors + whatever distributed program running on it, and it will not be conscious. It is not composed of the kind of matter needed for consciousness, which could include biochemical alternatives. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry @philipthrift -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
