On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was not dismissing the argument and certainly not making a presumption of > human dominion over understanding. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm not > quite sure why you believe that I did. Could you tell me which of my > phrases caused you to believe that I did?
Well a precise analysis of which of your phrases in caused me to believe that you were dismissing the argument isn't likely to be very useful because it can quickly become a discussion of diminishing returns. Your point was that Searle was thinking of a program that only used formal symbols. (That's OK). However, you then went on as if a formal symbol system had to be closed and logically sound. (Not true.) To correct myself, my point is that Searle's thought experiment cannot be dismissed with a hidden presumption that machines cannot 'understand' (a system of symbol manipulation cannot 'understand') but it also cannot be dismissed with declaration that Searle was only thinking of a closed, logically-sound system of symbolic reference. Searle's thoughts on the subject can provide some insight, but the thought experiment cannot be dismissed easily regardless of Searle's intention. >> So you are arguing that a computer program can not be defined solely >> in terms of computational processes over formally defined elements? > > No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that Searle said (and I agree) that > a computer program that *only* manipulated formally defined elements without > intention or altering itself could not reach strong AI. But, that is where you dismiss the essence of the argument. An acceptance of the apparent paradox : a machine can only be programmed to react but a machine that was able to learn by interacting with the IO data environment and which could exhibit effective use of the knowledge could be said to 'understand' its IO data environment to some degree. I mostly agree with your point of view, and I am not actually saying that your technical statements are wrong. I am trying to explain that there is something more to be learned. The apparent paradox can be reduced to the never ending deterministic vs free will argument. I think the resolution of these two paradoxical problems is a necessary design principle. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- 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
