4 ms·

You are right, if you add quotes to the word 'understood' in the second sentence. So, it is an issue of what understanding in the context of humans, in what way

You are right, if you add quotes to the word 'understood' in the second sentence. So, it is an issue of what understanding in the context of humans, in what way this is different from what understanding in the context of computers/symbolic language is.

gmueckl 8y ago
This highlights how fuzzy terms like intelligence and understanding are. How exactly is human understanding/reasoning different to that of a dog, a monkey or a computer? How do you value each one of these? Should an animal be valued higher than than a constructed machine that is otherwise identical? What about humans and machines?
- lottin 8y ago
  Does a light bulb know that it is on or off? That it exists? Normally, in order to answer these questions we would look at the empirical evidence, and the evidence in favour that inanimate objects have self-awareness is completely non-existent. On the other hand, the evidence that animals have self-awareness is overwhelmingly strong. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that inanimate objects aren't self-aware but that people and animals are. (And of course this also means that is NOT reasonable to conclude otherwise.)
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    See also: https://coronaradiata.net/2012/12/24/does-a-thermostat-have-consciousness/ https://coronaradiata.net/2012/12/24/does-a-thermostat-have-...
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    We attribute self-awareness (or other attributes) based on the results of behavioral tests that we perform on the test subject. Assume, for the sake of the argument, that I built a machine that exhibits the same kind of self-awareness as an elephant. So it would recognize itself in a mirror test etc... So if it manages to pass all these tests, is it self-aware? According to Ernst Mach, two things that are indistinguishable by observation are actually equal. This is essentially a part of the Chinese Room Argument: how can you draw a distinction between two things, when you cannot observe it?
mcguire 8y ago
The Turing test is an attempt to define intelligence operationally, from the outside, as a black box. Searle's argument is that the test is ineffective, since he is hypothetically satisfying it without "intelligence". Unfortunately, his argument applies to a human being as well, so...

gmueckl 8y ago

This highlights how fuzzy terms like intelligence and understanding are. How exactly is human understanding/reasoning different to that of a dog, a monkey or a computer? How do you value each one of these? Should an animal be valued higher than than a constructed machine that is otherwise identical? What about humans and machines?

lottin 8y ago
Does a light bulb know that it is on or off? That it exists? Normally, in order to answer these questions we would look at the empirical evidence, and the evidence in favour that inanimate objects have self-awareness is completely non-existent. On the other hand, the evidence that animals have self-awareness is overwhelmingly strong. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that inanimate objects aren't self-aware but that people and animals are. (And of course this also means that is NOT reasonable to conclude otherwise.)
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  See also: https://coronaradiata.net/2012/12/24/does-a-thermostat-have-consciousness/ https://coronaradiata.net/2012/12/24/does-a-thermostat-have-...
- gmueckl 8y ago
  We attribute self-awareness (or other attributes) based on the results of behavioral tests that we perform on the test subject. Assume, for the sake of the argument, that I built a machine that exhibits the same kind of self-awareness as an elephant. So it would recognize itself in a mirror test etc... So if it manages to pass all these tests, is it self-aware? According to Ernst Mach, two things that are indistinguishable by observation are actually equal. This is essentially a part of the Chinese Room Argument: how can you draw a distinction between two things, when you cannot observe it?

mcguire 8y ago

The Turing test is an attempt to define intelligence operationally, from the outside, as a black box. Searle's argument is that the test is ineffective, since he is hypothetically satisfying it without "intelligence". Unfortunately, his argument applies to a human being as well, so...