4 ms·
Some very interesting points and discussion here; what surprises me is no mention yet of the major thought experiment addressing many of the AI/intelligence arg
by limist 17y ago
Some very interesting points and discussion here; what surprises me is no mention yet of the major thought experiment addressing many of the AI/intelligence arguments made here - the 29-year old Chinese Room paper by John Searle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
In sum,
(A1) "Programs are formal (syntactic)."
(A2) "Minds have mental contents (semantics)."
(A3) "Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics."
(C1) Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.
- req2 17y agohttp://lesswrong.com/lw/15a/a_note_on_hypotheticals/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/15a/a_note_on_hypotheticals/
- limist 17y agoThanks for the link. While I don't disagree with the general point of the linked article, the writer PhilGoetz misstates Searle's conclusion. Also, Goetz's counter-argument - that the locus of consciousness need not be the man in the room - is addressed in the Wikipedia article too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#System_and_virtual_mind_replies:_finding_the_mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#System_and_virtual...