Searle had one good insight (Chinese room) and has been coasting on it ever since.
His fundamental opinion is hard to identify, completely non-interesting, and boils down to: - synthetic consciousness is possible, far away, and so difficult it might only happen by accident - synthetic consciousness will be somehow electrochemical He repeats one claim with religious zeal: - "computers" are "symbolic" and can never achieve "consciousness" Such a statement is so dependent on semantics that it's really kind of funny. Most of all, the word "consciousness" is a suitcase word (many intertangled definitions) that is closely tied to our own identities, and will inevitably provoke all sorts of emotional responses. I was embarrassed to watch this video when it was posted on hacker news, very low signal to noise ratio. On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Joseph Rocca <[email protected]> wrote: > If you skip to 42 minutes (exactly), that sums up Searle's thesis I think > (for those who haven't heard of him). I think I'm on Kurzweil's side, who > asked the question which prompted this summary. > > Cheers, > Joe > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Chandan Maruthi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Here is a good talk on Consciousness and AI >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&index=19&list=PLiRWN-3sKrAmCF0-jdqRFk9JKEcuhvAnW >> >> >> -- >> Regards >> Chandan Maruthi >> >> >
