4 ms·

Charles Searle arguments never held much water. He basically argued that computers could never think because they were computers and not humans. And even if w

Charles Searle arguments never held much water. He basically argued that computers could never think because they were computers and not humans. And even if we replicated a human body and gave the computer it experiences and ability to interact with the world and even if it appeared to be conscious in an undistinguished able way from humans it still would not be intelligent like humans. Once you get into it Searle is a dualist who pretends that he isn’t. I think you need to move beyond Searle because he isn’t right. I did a cog sci degree and I saw Searle as a troll. They make for great debates because they argue their side passionately and it helps you understand the problem but in the end he is wrong. Move past it and you can engage with the problem again.

dvt 4y ago
> I did a cog sci degree and I saw Searle as a troll I have a philosophy degree and smart people still very much take him seriously. If not him, take a look at Nagel or Chalmers. I think that his idea† that conscious experience is non-computable is probably right, especially given findings in the early 20th century that many things that we thought may have been computable ended up not being computable. † Not exactly his idea, though it nicely segueys into it.
- bhouston 4y ago
  > I have a philosophy degree and smart people still very much take him seriously. I agree that some people take him seriously. Many people take religion seriously too. I don't take either him or religion seriously as true, but I do understand both his and religion's appeals. That said, I do give a decent chance to aspects of the brain's problem solving ability having quantum properties and thus can not be calculated as efficiently on classical computers. We do not know this for sure, but evolution is incredibly inventive at finding efficient solutions. Still computable though, even on classical computers. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
- int_19h 4y ago
  People who start with the assumption that there's some "secret sauce" take on consciousness and intelligence the Chinese Room seriously, because it is intentionally constructed to beg that exact question. People who start with the opposite assumption reject the experiment as not meaningful. So, really, all that this tells you is that many people have this assumption.

dvt 4y ago

> I did a cog sci degree and I saw Searle as a troll I have a philosophy degree and smart people still very much take him seriously. If not him, take a look at Nagel or Chalmers. I think that his idea† that conscious experience is non-computable is probably right, especially given findings in the early 20th century that many things that we thought may have been computable ended up not being computable. † Not exactly his idea, though it nicely segueys into it.

bhouston 4y ago
> I have a philosophy degree and smart people still very much take him seriously. I agree that some people take him seriously. Many people take religion seriously too. I don't take either him or religion seriously as true, but I do understand both his and religion's appeals. That said, I do give a decent chance to aspects of the brain's problem solving ability having quantum properties and thus can not be calculated as efficiently on classical computers. We do not know this for sure, but evolution is incredibly inventive at finding efficient solutions. Still computable though, even on classical computers. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
int_19h 4y ago
People who start with the assumption that there's some "secret sauce" take on consciousness and intelligence the Chinese Room seriously, because it is intentionally constructed to beg that exact question. People who start with the opposite assumption reject the experiment as not meaningful. So, really, all that this tells you is that many people have this assumption.