3 ms·
The catch in your argument is that from the outside, you manipulating code and your computer manipulating code are indistinguishable. You say the only differenc
by nautilius 5y ago
The catch in your argument is that from the outside, you manipulating code and your computer manipulating code are indistinguishable. You say the only difference is that you understand, whereas the computer doesn't. However, from the outside, there is no difference between a statement print("I understand this") running on you or a computer.
- endisneigh 5y agoWhat you are stating is the entire point of the thought experiment.
- nautilius 5y agoCool, there are at least five different 'that is the whole point' takes on what the Chinese room means in this discussion. Also, I disagree with your take on it, that's not at all the point.
- endisneigh 5y agoThe fact that you’re saying “from the outside” is literally the point. Outside implies an inside implies dualism. Hence the thought experiment. If there was no outside the thought experiment inherently wouldn’t be.
- nautilius 5y agoEasy there with the words. Just because there's two of something is hardly an argument for a (mind-body) dualism [1]. Is the dichotomy cats vs dogs then proof for said dualism as well? How about vanilla vs chocolate? What do you make of the existence of a (six sided) die then? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
- endisneigh 5y agosmh, have a good one.
- nautilius 5y ago> Outside implies an inside implies dualism Well, unless with dualism you just mean that there are two, you are simply mistaken. Just because my car has an inside and an outside, and I cannot determine the state of its gearbox from the outside w/o the car telling me, does not mean that this implies a ghost in the machine. Far from it.