4 ms·

The "Chinese Room" argument isn't an argument against consciousness being computation. In the same way the man in the room doesn't understand Chinese to be abl

The "Chinese Room" argument isn't an argument against consciousness being computation. In the same way the man in the room doesn't understand Chinese to be able to produce Chinese, the mind in your brain does not need to understand consciousness to be conscious. The man in the room can be said to pass the Turing test, and so can you.

carom 4y ago
I've always felt this way about lucid dreaming. How do I know if I am aware during my dream, or if I am just dreaming that I am aware?
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  Same here: I've definitely had dreams where I was thinking "oh this is a dream". But when I woke up, I wasn't sure if that was just an "inside the dream" thought.
dvt 4y ago
What a confused post. > The "Chinese Room" argument isn't an argument against consciousness being computation. This is exactly what it is. Particularly with regard to "thinking," albeit not "consciousness" proper. Though the corollary is that only conscious things can think. > The man in the room can be said to pass the Turing test, and so can you. The Turing test is much weaker than the Chinese room experiment. A significant number of chatbots might pass the Turing test, but that has absolutely nothing to do with sentience.
- jamesrom 4y ago
  > This is exactly what it is... I'm literally taking the narrow conclusion from the second paragraph: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ > This is exactly what it is ... albeit not "consciousness" proper Which is it? You conceded the first point in the second. > The Turing test is much weaker than the Chinese room experiment. Yes agreed, this comment on the Turing test was a reference to the linked article that makes the same claim. I'm not conflating consciousness with "being able to pass the Turing test". It's a remark on how understanding consciousness need not be a prerequisite of consciousness.
  - dvt 4y ago
    > I'm literally taking the narrow conclusion from the second paragraph: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ You should really the entire article, but at least finish the paragraph you're citing: "The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted."
    - jamesrom 4y ago
      I have read the whole thing. My point is I’m taking the narrow conclusion and not the broader conclusion, if I have to spell it out to you. Please continue not responding to the rest of my points.
manx 4y ago
I just discovered that there's lots of relevant content, arguments and explanations in this huge Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

carom 4y ago

I've always felt this way about lucid dreaming. How do I know if I am aware during my dream, or if I am just dreaming that I am aware?

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
Same here: I've definitely had dreams where I was thinking "oh this is a dream". But when I woke up, I wasn't sure if that was just an "inside the dream" thought.

dvt 4y ago

What a confused post. > The "Chinese Room" argument isn't an argument against consciousness being computation. This is exactly what it is. Particularly with regard to "thinking," albeit not "consciousness" proper. Though the corollary is that only conscious things can think. > The man in the room can be said to pass the Turing test, and so can you. The Turing test is much weaker than the Chinese room experiment. A significant number of chatbots might pass the Turing test, but that has absolutely nothing to do with sentience.

jamesrom 4y ago
> This is exactly what it is... I'm literally taking the narrow conclusion from the second paragraph: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ > This is exactly what it is ... albeit not "consciousness" proper Which is it? You conceded the first point in the second. > The Turing test is much weaker than the Chinese room experiment. Yes agreed, this comment on the Turing test was a reference to the linked article that makes the same claim. I'm not conflating consciousness with "being able to pass the Turing test". It's a remark on how understanding consciousness need not be a prerequisite of consciousness.
- dvt 4y ago
  > I'm literally taking the narrow conclusion from the second paragraph: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ You should really the entire article, but at least finish the paragraph you're citing: "The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted."
  - jamesrom 4y ago
    I have read the whole thing. My point is I’m taking the narrow conclusion and not the broader conclusion, if I have to spell it out to you. Please continue not responding to the rest of my points.

manx 4y ago

I just discovered that there's lots of relevant content, arguments and explanations in this huge Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room