Richard,
Thank you for a thought provoking response. I admire your ability to think
with both logic and reason. I think what Searle was trying to get at was
this...and I have read 'The Chinese Room Theory'...I think that what he was
trying to say was...if the human brain breaks down code like a machine does,
that does not make it understand the logic of the code, it is afterall code.
If you go back to basics, for example binary code, it becomes almost sequence
and you are (well some of us are, like machines) able to understand how to put
the puzzle together again but we may not understand the logic behind that code,
ie: The Chinese Language as a whole.
Although for instance the AI has the ability to decifer the code and respond,
it does not understand the whole, which is funny in a way as you call your
cause 'Singularity'...which to me implies 'wholeness' for some reason.
Regarding your comment on....shock, horror, they made an AI that has human
cognitive thought processes, quite the contrary Richard, if you and the rest of
the AI community come up with the goods I would be most intrigued to sit your
AI down in front of me and ask it.......'Do you understand the code 'SMILE' ?'
Candice
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:17:32 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> singularity@v2.listbox.com> Subject: Re: [singularity] John Searle...> >
> candice schuster wrote:> > Hi Richard,> > > > I'm beginning to feel sorry for
> you, do you not tire of endless challenges ?> > > > Back to the AI debate
> then....still parallel to what you think....> > > > In all of my previous
> posts, most of them anyhow I have mentioned > > consciousness, today I found
> myself reading some of John Searle's > > theories, he poses exactly the same
> type of question...The reason > > computers can't do semantics is because
> semantics is about meaning; > > meaning derives from original intentionality,
> and original > > intentionality derives from feelings - qualia - and
> computers don't have > > any qualia. How does consciousness get added to the
> AI picture Richard ?> > How can I summarize my feelings about Seale? His
> stuff generated a > humungous literature, and in my opinion almost all of it
> was a waste of > time.> > Point number 1: Searle himself is confused. When
> asked for > clarification about what he actually claims, he dodges, shifts
> position, > becomes vague, gets aggressive, etc etc. Pleaaaase don't ask me
> to say > exactly why I make this claim: I'm summarizing hundreds of debates,
> > several books and piles of articles. Please believe me, when you get > down
> into the details of his argument, it is not at all clear what he > really
> means, and when you ask him, he does not answer.> > Point number 2: Searle's
> argument is completely and utterly broken. It > is broken in many ways, but
> the one that really kills it most thoroughly > is as follows. He uses a
> thought experiment (his Chinese Room) that > contains an extremely weird
> situation (An intelligent system being > implemented ON TOP OF a system that
> is already intelligent at a lower > level), and then he SAYS that artificial
> intelligence researchers would > make a certain claim about this weird system
> (He says: "AI researchers > would say that this system understands Chinese"),
> but in fact, AI > researchers would never make that claim.> > He basically
> puts words into the mouths of AI researchers that they > would never utter,
> then he destroys the plausibility of this claim that > they would never make,
> THEN he generalizes his conclusion to say that > other claims made by AI
> researchers are "obviously" wrong.> > It is a bogus argument. In simple
> terms, AI researchers would say that > the weird system he proposes has TWO
> intelligences inside it, not one, > and that because of this you cannot talk
> about whether the "whole" > system understands this or that or the other: it
> is entirely possible, > in this weird system that is not likely to ever exist
> in the real world, > for one of the two intelligences to "understand" Chinese
> while the other > does not. So when Searle says "The system clearly does not
> understand > Chinese" the AI researchers say "Which system are you referring
> to, > John, because there are two of them?!". John, of course, starts dodging
> > at this point, trying to push words into the mouths of the AI folks >
> without ever answering the question. If Searle wants to talk about the >
> bottom-level intelligence, the AI folks agree with him completely: > "Nope,
> that one does not understand Chinese, and we never claimed it did."> > It is
> unbelievable that so much time could have been wasted by so many > people on
> so much nonsense.> > Searle himself, meanwhile, is arrogant and triumphalist
> when you > actually meet him (I did, at a conference last year). He simply
> struts > around, mocking the AI folks and saying "I proved them wrong. They >
> argued back. I won!".> > The truth is that qualia are something that
> computers can very much > have, and semantics, and all the rest. It will be a
> while before the > reasons why this is so penetrate all the way down to the
> street, but > that will eventually become clear.> > > At the same time I find
> myself moving back to Charles Darwin again and > > his study of the human
> smile...how come tribes in the Amazon who have > > had no outside contact to
> the world (back then anyhow) still smile when > > they are happy when they
> have never encountered the human world, which > > part of our genetic make up
> equals a smile...then back again to AI...as > > Searle said...it's got
> something to do with biological qualities of the > > brain. We are organic,
> we cannot be replicated no matter how much each > > one of us thinks of the
> human brain as a machine. > > > > Hmmmmm.....> > I don't understand why a
> smile reaction proves anything about the issue. > I guess I am confused about
> what you are trying to claim here.> > I won't say anything more about your
> mention of Searle, here, but there > is something important lurking in your
> mention of "... no matter how > much each one of us thinks of the human brain
> as a machine."> > Would it surprise you to know that some of us believe that
> it is > possible to build a complete, thinking, feeling, qualia-experiencing,
> > semantically-complete machine that is every bit as intelligent as us, > BUT
> that we would never say that this means the mind is "just" a machine?> > This
> is a subtle point, but I assure you that even though I think minds > can be
> made, it is not the case (and NEVER will be the case) that all > the things
> we experience as minds can be explained by objective science. > I'm not
> talking about telepathy (as Turing did: I am open minded on > that point),
> but simply about subjective consciousness.> > We can predict that a machine
> of the right sort would be conscious, but > that does not mean that
> consciousness can be "explained" in any > conventional sense. Nothing will
> ever explain away what consciousness is.> > Instead of thinking of
> intelligent machines as some kind of depressing > bring-down for the human
> species ("Horror! They made an AI, so we're > just machines after all!!") you
> should think of it the other way round: > if we build machines that can
> think, more consciousnesses come into > the world: each one has an
> inexplicable subjective consciousness that > can never be fully explained,
> just as mysterious as any other > consciousness in the universe.> > I say all
> this, not because I am guessing it to be true, or jumping to > conclusions,
> or wanting it to be true, but because it is a direct result > of what I think
> is the best theory of consciousness around at the > moment, which I think
> will eventually come to be the mainstream theory.> > > > > Richard Loosemore>
> > -----> This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email> To
> unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:>
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
_________________________________________________________________
Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=57627882-3f66fe
