3 ms·

Is there a good counter-paper to the chinese room experiment ? I'd think there might be one, but I'm not sure where to look.

Rhapso 2y ago
No point in refuting the truth, but we can re-evaluate what we think it implies about the world or each other. it really boils down to how "special" we want to keep the voice in our head that tells itself a story about what the body has already done.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  What do you think the truth is in this case?
  - Rhapso 2y ago
    The truth is that any internal state of finite complexity can be emulated by an equally complex or more complex system. Worse, the state we wish to evaluate "consciousness" is different than the probably lower complexity state of the system that we ARE testing for, which is the ability to converse. It isn't even about consciousness really, that's just a poorly defined state we can't observe directly and wish we could. I recommend asking "what CAN'T consciousness do" and be filtering for that instead. That way maybe we can show some things aren't conscious, which is the first hurdle we haven't jumped.
musicale 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://philpapers.org/browse/the-chinese-room https://philpapers.org/browse/the-chinese-room
musicale 2y ago
via wikipedia: "If a program behaves as if it were multiplying, most of us would say that it is, in fact, multiplying. For all I know, Searle may only be behaving as if he were thinking deeply about these matters. But, even though I disagree with him, his simulation is pretty good, so I’m willing to credit him with real thought."[1] [1] A Short Rebuttal to Searle, https://ai.stanford.edu/%7Enilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/General%20Essays/OtherEssays-Nils/searle.pdf https://ai.stanford.edu/%7Enilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/General%2... I like this quite a bit, and I also wish that Prof. Nilsson were still with us to comment on current LLMs and other systems.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  That's awesome, and lead me to more. Thanks!

Rhapso 2y ago

No point in refuting the truth, but we can re-evaluate what we think it implies about the world or each other. it really boils down to how "special" we want to keep the voice in our head that tells itself a story about what the body has already done.

Kim_Bruning 2y ago
What do you think the truth is in this case?
- Rhapso 2y ago
  The truth is that any internal state of finite complexity can be emulated by an equally complex or more complex system. Worse, the state we wish to evaluate "consciousness" is different than the probably lower complexity state of the system that we ARE testing for, which is the ability to converse. It isn't even about consciousness really, that's just a poorly defined state we can't observe directly and wish we could. I recommend asking "what CAN'T consciousness do" and be filtering for that instead. That way maybe we can show some things aren't conscious, which is the first hurdle we haven't jumped.

musicale 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://philpapers.org/browse/the-chinese-room https://philpapers.org/browse/the-chinese-room

musicale 2y ago

via wikipedia: "If a program behaves as if it were multiplying, most of us would say that it is, in fact, multiplying. For all I know, Searle may only be behaving as if he were thinking deeply about these matters. But, even though I disagree with him, his simulation is pretty good, so I’m willing to credit him with real thought."[1] [1] A Short Rebuttal to Searle, https://ai.stanford.edu/%7Enilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/General%20Essays/OtherEssays-Nils/searle.pdf https://ai.stanford.edu/%7Enilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/General%2... I like this quite a bit, and I also wish that Prof. Nilsson were still with us to comment on current LLMs and other systems.

Kim_Bruning 2y ago
That's awesome, and lead me to more. Thanks!