0

# Chinese Room Experiment

demonhunter

1
Tue 28 Feb, 2012 08:49 pm
@Cyracuz,
I believe I am getting closer to understanding. Thanks for your patience. So is context part of the truth? Or is truth determined by context? Both? Neither? If I am understanding you, I believe you will answer both.
Cyracuz

1
Wed 29 Feb, 2012 06:46 am
@demonhunter,
That's a good question. What is true is often a matter of agreement. It is true that 2+2=4, because every variable is clearly defined, so there can be no question of the outcome. There isn't a lot to do with context here. 2+2 will always be 4.

But if we look at a statement: "Jack was mean to Joe". The truth of that statement depends on the context. Was he mean to Joe?
Imagine we called a trial to get to the truth of it. That trial would be a negotiation, and the truth would be the outcome of the negotiation. During the negotiation the context in which the truth would be decided would be agreed upon.

I am sure others have things to add, or can express these ideas clearer.
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Thu 1 Mar, 2012 02:39 am
...I suppose Jack n Joe, are sizeable finite entity´s, equally, with a finite frame of possibility´s on how they can relate...in that Set of reference, A did something to B either is true or is false, it can´t be both...
Cyracuz

1
Thu 1 Mar, 2012 04:35 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Either true or false. Can it be both? Isn't it both until we determine which it is?

Say Jack has a gun, and Joe ends up shot. What is the difference between Jack aiming for the air and missing (hitting Joe instead), and Jack aiming at Joe and hitting what he aims for. What does that do to the truth of what Jack did?
demonhunter

1
Thu 1 Mar, 2012 08:34 am
If we define “mean,” in any sort of way, then whatever definition we use limits the possibilities. And, if we define “mean,” in any sort of way, then somebody is either “mean” (by this definition) or not “mean.”
If, as the lawmakers, we decide to include “shooting people” in our definition, then whoever shot who was the “meanie.” We may even choose to make a better definition, and maybe decide that intent has something to do with being “mean.” It really doesn’t matter, whatever definition we use, limits the possibilities of "mean" as we apply it to whatever context we decide. Even if we just stick to the original definition of “mean: mean,” we limit the possibilities.
The real question is if we can accurately apply a truthful definition in order to make a truthful judgment.
I believe that while I know what being "mean" is, I am not always able to judge if a person is truly being "mean." The problem is that things aren't always as they appear.
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Tue 6 Mar, 2012 09:20 pm
@Cyracuz,
...if what u mean is that someone may or may not had intention of shooting how does that changes the truth in any way ?
...either someone shoot someone or not, either someone intended to shoot at someone or not ! ...whatever the case, IS the case !
...what we can know has nothing to do with it...
Cyracuz

1
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 10:30 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...if what u mean is that someone may or may not had intention of shooting how does that changes the truth in any way ?

He either intentionally shot, or accidentally shot someone. There is a pretty significant difference, though perhaps not to the person who ends up getting shot. That in turn shows another thing; that truth can be subjective.

Quote:
...either someone shoot someone or not, either someone intended to shoot at someone or not ! ...whatever the case, IS the case !

Sure. But it is possible to do something despite intentions not to do it. What's your point?

Quote:
...what we can know has nothing to do with it...

Are you saying that what is true is true irrespective of what we can know about it?
Fil Albuquerque

1
Thu 8 Mar, 2012 11:25 am
@Cyracuz,
I may or may not know that Lisbon is the capital of Portugal, although of course that does n´t make it any less true...

...if it is the case that someone shot someone else accidentally or on purpose then it is the case...
Cyracuz

1
Thu 8 Mar, 2012 12:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Aren't you just stating the obvious here?
If the shot was an accident it is not true that it happened intentionally...
Fil Albuquerque

1
Thu 8 Mar, 2012 08:28 pm
@Cyracuz,
I was under the impression that you missed the obvious...
Cyracuz

1
Fri 9 Mar, 2012 02:21 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
If you think I missed something, I would be grateful if you pointed it out to me.

Shall we try to keep it civil this time? Welcome back Fil.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 9 Mar, 2012 03:16 pm
@Cyracuz,
The same subject as been discussed in a similar thread I would recommend you to read it carefully...the distinction one is doing is between what we can or cannot know with certainty being entirely separate from the matter of fact which is inescapable...meaning that while it is debatable whether what we know is certain or not, the assumption for such debate to take place necessarily requires a reality...
(see Reality from the view point of theists)
...from the moment one starts speaking, observing, being, reality is an a priori assumption that simply cannot be dumped without dumping with it the very debate which is taking place !
demonhunter

1
Fri 9 Mar, 2012 03:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Seriously, I don't see the relevance in this whole "reality" and "understanding" debate. Why should I question these matters?
Fil Albuquerque

1
Fri 9 Mar, 2012 04:03 pm
@demonhunter,
...if you don´t seriously what are you doing in this thread ???
demonhunter

1
Fri 9 Mar, 2012 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Before, I was asking a question. Now, I am not getting an answer.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Sat 10 Mar, 2012 02:13 am
@demonhunter,
...I am certainly not the one sorting out your own existencial demons, its not up to me to get the relevance for you of such matters...as they say if you dont see it then no explaining is needed...
demonhunter

1
Sat 10 Mar, 2012 09:57 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Is that what they say? I've really never heard that one. Wow. Thanks for the enlightenment.
spendius

1
Sat 10 Mar, 2012 01:14 pm
@demonhunter,
This is all rather banal dh. AI is impossible.

Sophists are supposed to lie around on couches waving their fingers around as they weave the winds and being waited upon by hetaera/i bringing delicious treats of one sort or another.

An AI machine could perhaps be programmed to order a pint of beer but it couldn't say whether it was gnat's piss or not.
demonhunter

1
Sat 10 Mar, 2012 02:37 pm
@spendius,
I agree that it is "banal" (I think) but AI is not impossible. All things are possible.
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Sun 11 Mar, 2012 08:11 pm
@demonhunter,
...read Plato´s reminiscence if u want some enlightenment...that is, if u find it any relevant...