Author: Robin Smith
Date: 18:49:08 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2001 at 04:32:52, allan johnson wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 19:50:02, Robin Smith 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 :-)) >>> >>>*** Djordje >> >>Searle goes on in section 3 to talk about the problem of consciousness. This is >>a REAL hard problem. Why is it that some brain processes result in >>consciousness, or awareness, or a sense of self .... Descartes "I think >>therefore I am", while other brain processes such as those that regulate heart >>rate, blood pressure, intestinal action etc. are outside conscious experience? >>Until we understand consciousness in humans I don't see how anyone can answer >>questions about whether or not what a computer does (such as Deep Blue) makes it >>conscious. >> >>Robin Smith > > Robin: Roger Penrose and Bill Harris have come up with some very convincing >ideas as to the nature of just what consciousness is . I personally find it a >terifying and fascinating topic. >cheers Allan Allan, Yes, Penrose is one of a number of people with some interesting conjectures. And yet to date all we have are theories. I have been thinking and reading about consciousness on and off for 30 years or so, starting back when I got a degree in philosophy. Some very interesting progress has been made over this period of time, but the fundamental mystery of consciousness still remains a mystery. Those who say "what a neuron does and what an electronic circuit does are essentially the same" could very well be correct. But so far since we have not yet figured out why one bunch of neurons is conscious and another bunch is not, the mystery of consciousness remains. Robin
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.