Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:28:02 03/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2001 at 22:29:00, Robin Smith wrote:
>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.
What is the problem?
Christophe
> 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 0.05 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.