On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Abram, > > If that's your response then we don't actually agree.
Sorry, I meant "I agree that Searle's responses are inadequate". > > I agree that the Chinese Room does not disprove strong AI, but I think it is > a valid critique for purely logical or non-grounded approaches. Why do you > think the critique fails on that level? Anyone else who rejects the Chinese > Room care to explain why? I explained somewhat in my first reply to this thread. Basically, as I understand you, you are saying that the original chinese room does not have understanding, but if we modify the argument to connect it up to a robot with adequate senses, it could have understanding (if the human inside could work fast enough to show it). But, if I am willing to grant that such a robot has understanding (despite the human controller having no understanding of the data being manipulated), then I may very well be willing to grant that the original Chinese room has understanding (as I am willing to grant). I do distrust some philosophy, but other issues I think are very important. For example, I am very interested in the foundations of mathematics. -Abram > > (I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but that should only make it > easier to point to references that clearly demolish the arguments. It should > be noted however that relatively recent advances regarding complexity and > emergence aren't quite as well hashed out with respect to the Chinese Room. > In the document you linked to, mention of emergence didn't come until a 2002 > reference attributed to Kurzweil.) > > If you can't explain your dismissal of the Chinese Room, it only reinforces > my earlier point that some of you who are working on AI aren't doing your > homework with the philosophy. It's ok to reject the Chinese Room, so long as > you have arguments to do it (and if you do, I'm all ears!) But if you don't > think the philosophy is important, then you're more than likely doing Cargo > Cult AI. > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) > > Terren > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Abram Demski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room >> To: agi@v2.listbox.com >> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 9:49 PM >> Terren, >> I agree. Searle's responses are inadequate, and the >> whole thought >> experiment fails to prove his point. I think it also fails >> to prove >> your point, for the same reason. >> >> --Abram >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
