Author: Robin Smith
Date: 19:21:16 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 00:53:41, Lonnie Cook 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. >> > >Deep Blue won, just accept it, heehee Lonnie, I HAVE accepted it. In fact I was routing for Deep Blue at the time! But that does nothing to settle the question of computer consciousness.
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.