Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 01:18 pm
Could we settle the Chinese Room Experiment debate by making the room a pyramid shape and taking away the rulebook?

Or perhaps, does this only open the debate up again?
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 06:38 pm
@demonhunter,
Good question.
0 Replies
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 07:55 pm
@demonhunter,
Yes, because if a human is able to understand heiroglyphs, then the Chinese Room Experiment is based on a faulty argument.
0 Replies
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 07:57 pm
@demonhunter,
But why would you say that this is like the Chinese Room Experiment at all? Humans understand heiroglyphs after passing on years of study and knowledge.
0 Replies
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 07:59 pm
@demonhunter,
But in a way this is the same thing. It is a collective mind. While the Chinese Room Experiment may prove that it would take a very long time to learn the foreign symbols, it just can't prove that AI would never be able to learn to understand. After all, computers do not have the problem of mortality.
0 Replies
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 08:01 pm
@demonhunter,
True, but you are missing the whole point. The point that Searle is trying to make is regarding the rulebook and how very different and unique the human understanding is.
0 Replies
 
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 08:03 pm
@demonhunter,
Yes. However, if you take this approach, then you might as well just put a computer in the original Chinese Room and call it a day. The system within the room is simply a computer in itself, albeit with a human appearance. In this way, nothing can be learned from the hypothesis.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 11:17 am
@demonhunter,
No. It is not a computer with a human's appearance. It is a human with a computer's appearance.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 11:21 am
@demonhunter,
Do you even know what you are saying or are you just trying to be ironic? Computer actions are defined, but so are human actions (however the human "program" is much more complex). So, if we take away the rulebook, and make the computer program equal in complexity, then we don't even need the Chinese Room. The question is simply: can we ever develop a computer program that has human potential?
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 11:23 am
@demonhunter,
Ahhhhh, can the creation ever equal the creator?! Interesting. What about the idea of the creation becoming greater than the creator?
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 11:26 am
@demonhunter,
Well, based on my beliefs, I would say "yes" to the first idea and "no" to the second.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 11:30 am
@demonhunter,
Explain. Is there any evidence for these beliefs? To me I only see creations being inferior to creators. In fact, I can not think of one example to contradict this conclusion. You are being very bold, even in saying that creation might become equal. Please, explain. You sound like an idiot.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 12:02 pm
@demonhunter,
Ad hominem abusive. Sorry, but I had to call you out on that. Maybe we are both idiots.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 12:04 pm
@demonhunter,
Thats not ad hominem abusive, just the truth. Anyway, you still need to explain how it is possible for a creation to equal its creator.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 12:07 pm
@demonhunter,
Well, it would require a very intelligent creator, first of all. One that is able to see himself completely accurately. One that is able to see every detail about himself and understand every detail about himself.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 12:11 pm
@demonhunter,
Certainly you can't see this in humans, can you? Obviously, we have many unanswered questions. Furthermore, you would need to assume that knowledge is finate. And suppose that knowledge is finate, and that human understanding does progress to this point of all understanding (as I must admit, that given enough time, it might) would this type of creation be something that he would see as worth creating?
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 12:11 pm
@demonhunter,
Who says that I am talking about humans?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 12:30 pm
I think understanding is a tricky term. How many people truly understand the world they live in? There are levels of it, different layers of understanding that are not arranged in any linear way. It is all arbitrary, both the what we seek to understand about and what we we actually come to understand.
demonhunter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 12:46 pm
@Cyracuz,
Please explain further what you mean by arbitrary. I think I might agree, however I want to make sure that I understand you.
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 03:08 pm
@demonhunter,
My language understanding is such that I can identify dutch when it is spoken or written, but I cannot speak or write it myself.
So I know dutch. I know it when I encounter it.
But I do not speak it, so I do not know dutch.

See? The truth of the statement "I know dutch" depends on the context. Which context I will put it in at any given time is decided arbitrarily, in this case by me.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Chinese Room Experiment
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 04:32:13