Substituting an actual human invalidates the experiment, because then you are
bringing something in that can actually do semantics. The point of the argument
is to show how merely manipulating symbols (i.e. the syntactical domain) is not
a demonstration of understanding, no matter what the global result of the
manipulation is (e.g., a chess move).
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 11:27 AM
by translator i meant human translator btw. what this experiment does suggest
is that linguistic abilities require energy (the book alone would do nothing).
and that they are independent of humanness (the machine could do it), whether
they involve 'understanding' or not.
On 8/6/08, Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I really don't see how it proves that then. In my view, the book could be
replaced with a chinese-english translator and the same exact outcome will be
given. Both are using their static knowledge for this process, not experience.
On 8/6/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Valentina,
I think the distinction you draw between the two kinds of understanding is
illusory. Mutual human experience is also an emergent phenomenon. Anyway,
that's not the point of the Chinese Room argument, which doesn't say that a
computer understands symbols in a different way than humans, it says that a
computer has no understanding, period.
Terren
--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Valentina Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My view is that the problem with the Chinese Room argument is precisely the
manner in which it uses the word 'understanding'. It is implied that in this
context this word refers to mutual human experience. Understanding has another
meaning, namely the emergent process some of you described, which can happen in
a computer in a different way from the way it happens in a human being. In fact
notice that the experiment says that the computer will not understand chinese
the way humans do. Therefore it implies the first meaning, not the second.
Regarding grounding, I think that any intelligence has to collect data from
somewhere in order to lear. Where it collects it from will determine the type
of intelligence it is. Collecting stories is still a way of collecting
information, but such an intelligence will never be able to move in the real
world, as it has no clue regarding it. On the other hand an intelligence who
learns by moving in the real world, yet has never read anything, will gather no
information from a book.
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
--
A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde
Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong.
For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong.
- H.L. Mencken
--
A true friend stabs you in the front. - O. Wilde
Einstein once thought he was wrong; then he discovered he was wrong.
For every complex problem, there is an answer which is short, simple and wrong.
- H.L. Mencken
agi | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
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
