The Chinese Room argument is a thought experiment and associated arguments designed by John Searle (Searle 1980) to show that a symbol processing machine like a computer can never be properly described as having a “mind” or “understanding”, regardless of how intelligently it may behave.
I’ve had this in tab for about a week now and thought that I should take some time out to share some of my thoughts on this matter.
Searle states that a computer, however sufficiently advanced and complex could not be said to possess a mind.
What is a mind, may I ask? I’m a materialist when it comes to AI. I think that AI .. or a machine which could be said to be conscious will arrive as a result of quantum computational advances, not software. At least not right now.
But who’s to say really? If an AI of any significant order of magnitude were alive, sentient, sapient, awake, and conscious it could be next to you right now and you’d never know. It could extend itself across the universe at the speed of light using the leverage of its massive intelligence to charm stars into acting as transmitters to propagate itself. It would be God for all intents and purposes. I really don’t see what the anthropocentrism, this thinly veiled attempt to slight such an intelligence, is really about. Searle’s thought experiment makes me think that he is halfways goading this (theoretical) universal AI into revealing itself by “calling it out,” as it were; and halfways ignorantly reaffirming his own specist ignorance.
My question to Dr. Searle would be, “how can you allow for something greater if you believe you are all there is.”
The solipsistic anthropoegocentrism is all well and good up to a point. At which point the cons begin to outweigh the pros and whoever is employing the tactic is reduced to square one.
I’m a Bayesian. I think the posture, rhetorical or otherwise, we assume weighs in massively on the breakthroughs we are allowed to bear witness to, and shepherd.
Onward, I think any massively intelligent AI construct wouldn’t even consider regarding the notion of whether or not it had a mind. The point is moot.
One thing to point out in Searle’s thought experiment is that in attempting to distinguish his human being from the machine he effectively synonymizes them. Read the experiment carefully and see if you can spot the moment when this occurs …
Cheers,
Worldpeace,
Ben
Comment by tk7936
5 6/20/2008, 11:28 pm o'clock |
Not yet, why is it worth it ?
Comment by Ben
4 6/18/2008, 5:21 pm o'clock |
Glad you enjoyed it, Swen
Are you running Firefox 3 btw?
Comment by tk7936
3 6/18/2008, 4:40 pm o'clock |
Thankyou, watching it was a blast for me.
Comment by Ben
2 6/17/2008, 11:11 pm o'clock |
Yes, Swen you are quite right. Please see the Juan Enriquez TED talk “Decoding the future with genomics” here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/80
Comment by tk7936
1 6/17/2008, 9:21 pm o'clock |
Im starting to tend to see Intel as a product of the information that is processed. That said, a symbol processing machine essentially is a geometrical Mill of somesort. If the geometrical code is correct that itself will create what we see as inteligence, meaning the intelligence is actually carried inside the information and not somekind of external function. So ultimatly what you need is good sensors and a Mill for them. Im am however not sure yet if the carrier wave of geomtrical structure is actually intelligence or awareness or if maybe both are actually the same thing.