4 ms·

In my opinion, this argument have existential consequences: either it's not possible to emulate mind on turing machine or we don't have qualia and consciousness

by Esspe 17y ago

In my opinion, this argument have existential consequences: either it's not possible to emulate mind on turing machine or we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have). And i don't like the latter.

shib71 17y ago
And the former isn't a particularly useful conclusion. The results of doing the research have a lot of potential. What potential does not trying have?
ThomPete 17y ago
The argument is so flawed I don't even know where to beging. It's the room that is conscious not the person. Of course the person can't speak Chinese. Neither can the neuron in my brain.
- foldr 17y ago
  That's the "systems reply", which Searle addressed in his original article. So I'm not sure which argument you're talking about.
camccann 17y ago
we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have) An illusion experienced by whom? What's the difference between having an illusion of consciousness and having the real thing?
- jerf 17y ago
  "What's the difference between having an illusion of consciousness and having the real thing?" Primarily, the word "illusion". At this point, having read up on these issues for a while, anytime I see the word "illusion" now I tend to just shut the book/leave the webpage/whatever. Have you ever, once, seen someone sit down and say what they mean by "illusion", or give a way of telling you how to distinguish between "illusion" or "reality"? Maybe you have (no sarcasm intended), but I've never seen it, and without that the word basically just marks someone who is trying to sound insightful without doing the hard work of actually being insightful and saying something without leaving an enormous linguistic void right in the center of the argument.
  - DrJokepu 17y ago
    Whether consciousness is only illusion is of no consequence. This path of thoughts (just like Berkeley's subjective idealism or its modern form, the Matrix movie) ain't leading anywhere (besides madness) hence it can be classified as solipsism. In my opinion, what matters that you experience consciousness, life, happiness or sadness. Have great meals, love the people who love you, do cool stuff as a 'hacker'. Your life will be as 'real' as it could get, whether it's an illusion or not.
Grinnmarr 17y ago
It's not just your opinion ;) This argument is about the nature of consciousness more than anything. It fights for a "subjective ontology" of the mental and is not easily dismissed as the earlier commentator would like to believe. The rapidity of upvotes and apparent sympathy to that claim by members of this community is certainly understandable given that the stance is anti-verificationist and presents problems for a purely scientific explanation of consciousness, but imho at our current level of intelligence/intellectual evolution a purely scientific explanation is horribly dehumanizing and insufficient.
radu_floricica 17y ago
Take a look at "Society of mind" by Marvin Minsky. We already understand pretty well that the mind is a colony of mostly independent system, working in various configurations. Here's the first chapter: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky07/minsky07_index.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky07/minsky07_index.html As far as I'm concerned, qualia is just a fancy synonym for "soul". I don't miss it one bit. Consciousness on the other hand, that we have. Only it turns out to be a more elusive concept then we once thought.
gphil 17y ago
Huh? How do you get from: (1) It is possible to emulate the mind on a Turing Machine. to: (2) We don't have qualia or consciousness. In my opinion, there's nothing about (1) that entails (2).
- dhume 17y ago
  According to the "Chinese room" argument, a machine is not capable of genuinely understanding a language (since it is only looking up and applying transformation rules). It is generally believed that a human can, so that would mean a human mind cannot be fully emulated by a Turing machine. The only alternative seems to be that a human actually has the same limitation as a Turing machine (non-consciousness) and does not really understand language either.

by Esspe 17y ago

shib71 17y ago

And the former isn't a particularly useful conclusion. The results of doing the research have a lot of potential. What potential does not trying have?

ThomPete 17y ago

The argument is so flawed I don't even know where to beging. It's the room that is conscious not the person. Of course the person can't speak Chinese. Neither can the neuron in my brain.

foldr 17y ago
That's the "systems reply", which Searle addressed in his original article. So I'm not sure which argument you're talking about.

camccann 17y ago

we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have) An illusion experienced by whom? What's the difference between having an illusion of consciousness and having the real thing?

jerf 17y ago
"What's the difference between having an illusion of consciousness and having the real thing?" Primarily, the word "illusion". At this point, having read up on these issues for a while, anytime I see the word "illusion" now I tend to just shut the book/leave the webpage/whatever. Have you ever, once, seen someone sit down and say what they mean by "illusion", or give a way of telling you how to distinguish between "illusion" or "reality"? Maybe you have (no sarcasm intended), but I've never seen it, and without that the word basically just marks someone who is trying to sound insightful without doing the hard work of actually being insightful and saying something without leaving an enormous linguistic void right in the center of the argument.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  Whether consciousness is only illusion is of no consequence. This path of thoughts (just like Berkeley's subjective idealism or its modern form, the Matrix movie) ain't leading anywhere (besides madness) hence it can be classified as solipsism. In my opinion, what matters that you experience consciousness, life, happiness or sadness. Have great meals, love the people who love you, do cool stuff as a 'hacker'. Your life will be as 'real' as it could get, whether it's an illusion or not.

Grinnmarr 17y ago

It's not just your opinion ;) This argument is about the nature of consciousness more than anything. It fights for a "subjective ontology" of the mental and is not easily dismissed as the earlier commentator would like to believe. The rapidity of upvotes and apparent sympathy to that claim by members of this community is certainly understandable given that the stance is anti-verificationist and presents problems for a purely scientific explanation of consciousness, but imho at our current level of intelligence/intellectual evolution a purely scientific explanation is horribly dehumanizing and insufficient.

radu_floricica 17y ago

Take a look at "Society of mind" by Marvin Minsky. We already understand pretty well that the mind is a colony of mostly independent system, working in various configurations. Here's the first chapter: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky07/minsky07_index.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky07/minsky07_index.html As far as I'm concerned, qualia is just a fancy synonym for "soul". I don't miss it one bit. Consciousness on the other hand, that we have. Only it turns out to be a more elusive concept then we once thought.

gphil 17y ago

Huh? How do you get from: (1) It is possible to emulate the mind on a Turing Machine. to: (2) We don't have qualia or consciousness. In my opinion, there's nothing about (1) that entails (2).

dhume 17y ago
According to the "Chinese room" argument, a machine is not capable of genuinely understanding a language (since it is only looking up and applying transformation rules). It is generally believed that a human can, so that would mean a human mind cannot be fully emulated by a Turing machine. The only alternative seems to be that a human actually has the same limitation as a Turing machine (non-consciousness) and does not really understand language either.