Author: Robin Smith
Date: 19:29:00 03/16/01
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. Clearly both are carrying meaning. >Then tell me the meaning of "meaning". Or you could start with this maybe? Meaning is the same thing as information. >And what's this "intentionality" stuff? For me it sounds like a word invented by >marketing people trying to hype for human's superiority. I don't think humans are necessarily superior. But neither do I think that we understand what makes us human. In particular I don't believe that the problem of consciousness has ever been explained. Until it is, I will believe that it is possible that there is something inherently different between a human and a computer that may not be solved by increased hardware power or program complexity. Robin Smith
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.