>> Thats my thought, but at what point is the manipulation responses just as
>> good as "human" responses.... if they are both in a black box, to the
>> outside observer, they are identical. Then they both could be said to have
>> an equal "understanding" about what they are doing. Given that the grading
>> is always done from an outside source
Yes -- but the whole problem here is caused by the "infinitely large"
instruction book assumption. Once you come off of that assumption, which is
impossible anyways, and fall back to merely extremely large, which is
reasonable, then you also get the distinction that you need.
----- Original Message -----
From: James Ratcliff
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room
>> With the chinese room, we arent doing any reasoning really, just
looking up answers according to instructions.... but given that, how do we
determine "understanding"?
>This was Searle's entire point. Mindless lookup is *not*
understanding. It may *look* like >understanding from the outside (and if you
have an infinitely large book that also has >mis-spellings, etc. -- you'll
never be able to prove otherwise), but it is merely manipulation, >not
intention.
Thats my thought, but at what point is the manipulation responses just
as good as "human" responses.... if they are both in a black box, to the
outside observer, they are identical. Then they both could be said to have an
equal "understanding" about what they are doing. Given that the grading is
always done from an outside source.
--- On Thu, 8/7/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Thursday, August 7, 2008, 2:49 PM
:-) The Chinese Room can't pass the Turing test for exactly the
reason you mention.
>> Well in the Chinese Room case I think the "book of instructions"
is infinitely large to handle all cases, so things like misspellings and stuff
would be included.... and I dont think that was meant to be a difference.
:-) Arguments that involved infinities are always problematical.
Personally, I think that the intention was that you should accept the more
reasonable and smaller infinity of just correct cases as being more in line
with what Searle intended. This is obviously just speculation however and YMMV.
>> With the chinese room, we arent doing any reasoning really, just
looking up answers according to instructions.... but given that, how do we
determine "understanding"?
This was Searle's entire point. Mindless lookup is *not*
understanding. It may *look* like understanding from the outside (and if you
have an infinitely large book that also has mis-spellings, etc. -- you'll never
be able to prove otherwise), but it is merely manipulation, not intention.
----- Original Message -----
From: James Ratcliff
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room
>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 AIIs this part of the
>Chinese Room? I looked and couldnt find that restriction. It would seem that
>to pass the Turing test, it would at least need to be able to add to its data,
otherwise something as simple as the below would fail the
Turing Test.
Q: My name is James.
AI: OK
Q: What is my name?
AI: *dont know didnt store it, or something like?*
I read that the CR agent receives the input, looks up in a
rulebook what to do, does it,
and returns the output, correct?
It seems that there is room for any action such as changing
the rulebook in the middle of the process, maybe to add a synonym for a chinese
word say.
James
_______________________________________
James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com
Looking for something...
From: Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.> Computers could react to and
> interact with input back in the day when> Searle wrote his book.Yes. But the
> Chinese Room does *not* alter itself in response to input or add to it's
> knowledge.> A computer program is a computational process over formally
> defined> elements even if is able to build complex and sensitive structures
> of> knowledge about its IO data environment through its interactions with>
> it.Yes. This is why I believe that a computer program
can achieve strong AI.> This is a subtle argument that cannot be dismissed
with an appeal> to a hidden presumption of the human dominion over
understanding or by> fixing it to some primitive theory about AI which was
unable to learn> through trial and error.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? Mark-----
Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bromer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To:
<agi@v2.listbox.com>Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:32 PMSubject: Re: [agi]
Groundless reasoning --> Chinese Room> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Mark
Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>> This has been a great
thread!>>>> Actually, if you read Searle's original paper, I think that
youwill find>> that he... is *not* meaning to argue against the>> possibility
of strong AI (since he makes repeated references to humanas>> machines) but
merely against the possibility of strong AI in machines >> where>> "the
operation of the machine is defined solely in terms ofcomputational>> processes
over formally defined elements" (which was the currentstate of>> the art in AI
when he was arguing against it -- unlike today wherethere >> are>> a number of
systems which don't require axiomatic reasoning overformally>> defined
elements). There's also the trick that Chinese Room is>> assumed/programmed to
be 100% omniscient/correct in it's requireddomain.>> So you are arguing that a
computer program can not
be defined solely> in terms of computational processes over formally defined
elements?> Computers could react to and interact with input back in the day
when> Searle wrote his book.> A computer program is a computational process
over formally defined> elements even if is able to build complex and sensitive
structures of> knowledge about its IO data environment through its interactions
with> it. This is a subtle argument that cannot be dismissed with an appeal>
to a hidden presumption of the human dominion over understanding or by> fixing
it to some primitive theory about AI which was unable to learn> through trial
and error.> Jim Bromer>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
