On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 10:25 +1000, David Lochrin wrote: > philosopher John Searle developed an argument against Strong AI known > as the "Chinese Room" thought experiment to which I referred earlier, > and it's described in Wikipedia at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room so I won't repeat it here. > However it has stood up well against attempts to knock it off.
Douglas Hofstadter comprehensively demolished it, and I think Daniel Dennett. It's much more a rhetorical treatise than a philosophical one. Lots of word games. > reproduce this structure quite well in hardware and equip it with > camera-eyes. So would this construct be able to _perceive_ colour? > > There's no colour in physics, only EM waves of certain wavelengths or > photons of certain energies, so where would it come from? If you can > answer that you'll be famous. Define "perceive" :-) Then prove - or even demonstrate - that you (or anyone) is doing it, and how you (or anyone) doing it is any different from a machine that does it. I'll wait over here. Your statement that "the output of a fibre can be considered a symbol" might need just a leeetle more scaffolding, too. Even if "in the sense of information theory." Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
