Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 07:42:58 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 00:20:32, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 18:49:25, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On March 14, 2001 at 15:04:28, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On March 14, 2001 at 14:07:36, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On March 14, 2001 at 13:03:27, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://personalidentity.tripod.com/id27.htm >>>> >>>> >>>>Part 2 is a real bullshit. The author tries to demonstrate that computers do not >>>>"know" chess, and he actually demonstrates that he does not "know" computers and >>>>that he does not "know" the human brain. >>>> >>>>I have heard more meaningful comments in a pub, even very late at night. >>> >>>Ah yes, Searle's argument is clearly refuted by the well known reasoning: >>>'Christophe says it is bullshit, therefore it is bullshit'. I happen to >>>disagree with Searle's Chinese Room argument, but I don't think its as clear as >>>just saying it is a pile of crap. In fact, I think he makes some very good >>>points. >>> >>>Peter >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >> >> >>I tend to agree with Peter. Searle's argument is based on a simple stipulation >>that the coded instructions of a program (Chinese character manipulation program >>in the given case) are insufficient to account for the meanings of the symbols >>or of the set of sentences generated with their help. This, further, implies >>that functional, or computational, explanations are insufficient to account for >>referential semantics (plain English: reference), and, as such, for >>intentionality which is the hallmark of humans. >> >>This kind of argument can be criticised, but not dismissed lightly. I've been >>having problems for quite some time with it :-)) > > >I don't. > >Watch a neuron or a transistor very closely and tell me why the former is >carrying meaning and the later is not. This neuron and transistor talk reminds me of my calculator, a HP 49G! How intelligent it is, solving equations! Perhaps even more intelligent than a chess program? Anyway, I find this use of the word intelligent wrong! I feel that a better approach to intelligence, is the ability to solve new problems. Eg: If I had a device that came across the game of chess, deducted the rules from observing the game, and then played chess, I would call the device intelligent. Until then, I prefer to think of chess playing, calculation etc. mostly to be prepared procedures. Perhaps you could call it a skill? Torstein > >Then tell me the meaning of "meaning". Or you could start with this maybe? > >And what's this "intentionality" stuff? For me it sounds like a word invented by >marketing people trying to hype for human's superiority. > > > Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.