curious_yogurt

7 ms·

1.
by curious_yogurt 7y ago
The claim seems accurate to me, at least for Scheme: that is, lambda calculus does underlie Scheme. Lambda calculus, as articulated in Church's 1935 paper, gives us a way to understand computability. But if we look specifically at Ope
2.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
To be fair, I did not ask the question of whether "the room understands." The question was whether "the person in the room understands," which seems perfectly reasonable. In order to grasp what you are saying about &quo
3.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
I think you have put your finger on exactly what is at issue: it does not matter whether the program is pencil or paper or electronically. It's an analogy. The point is that we do not (says Searle) impute understanding to the person
4.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
I do not believe I have presupposed the answer; I have simply articulated how I believe the reductio to work. The key, of course, is whether we think that the person in the Room actually understands Chinese. The inference Searle wants us t
5.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
The Chinese Room is a reductio against Strong AI. Strong AI is the idea that a program that programme that is able, for example, to converse in Chinese thereby understands Chinese. The Room, if successful, drives a wedge between "act
6.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
It seems to me that the argument is not meant to address the value judgements of people doing work in applied ML. The basic idea of the Chinese Room is that the Turing Test is inadequate—such that even if a machine could pass the test, we w
7.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
I think it is a rather bizarre suggestion that one should read Plato in the order believed correct in antiquity. For one, it seems to me that the ancients were incorrect about that order. And, as you say, there are several dialogues the a
8.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
The idea that Plato was "impressive for his time," but with the inference that he is not now, is something certainly held by some modern-day philosophers. But it is not a generally accepted view. The reason is that philosophy is
9.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
It seems to me that the claim that Plato's "actual argumentation is generally pretty bad" is something that might be challenging to defend. It is a very sweeping claim, and it also assumes the argumentation of the author is
10.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
Does Plato actually advocate this? If you are referring to an argument Socrates makes in the Republic regarding politically motivated lying, it seems to me not unreasonable at an initial glance to say that Socrates represents Plato's
11.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
Indeed, questioning assumptions is a part of what hopefully comes out of a careful reading of Plato's dialogues. But it is much more than this. Plato not only tries to figure out which questions are worth asking, but embeds a plethor
12.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
>So if Plato is misunderstood, it is because he failed to make himself clear by clearly stating that an easy way of misunderstanding him is not what he actually meant. I think your inference is partly true, but partly not true. In some
13.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
>This is not starting off well. The first rule is to interpret him in the most favorable way possible Actually, as a principle of reading in general, this is not a bad one. It does not mean that we have to decide that the most favourabl
14.
by curious_yogurt 8y ago
Critical thinking books vary widely in quality. They often get bogged down in long catalogues of fallacies and categorical logic (which, while interesting, is not as useful as sentential logic and some elementary strategies in first-order