3 ms·
What a confused post. > The "Chinese Room" argument isn't an argument against consciousness being computation. This is exactly what it is. Particularly with r
by 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 agoI 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.