John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#2There isn't much new here. Skip ahead to the first audience question from Ray Kurzweil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=38m51s).
Kurzweil, in summary, asks "You say that a machine manipulating symbols can't have consciousness. Why is this different than consciousness arising neurons manipulating neurotransmitter concentrations?" Searle gives a non-answer: "My dog has consciousness because I can look at it and conclude that it has consciousness."
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#3There isn't much new here. Skip ahead to the first audience question from Ray Kurzweil ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=38m51s ). Kurzweil, in summary, asks "You say that a machine manipulating symbols can't have consciousness. Why is this different than consciousness arising neurons manipulating neurotransmitter concentrations?" Searle gives a non-answer: "My dog has consciousness because I can look at…
Yeah honestly I don't get what he is really contributing (and I'm sort of an AI skeptic). In 2000 in undergrad, I recall checking out some of his books from the library because people said he was important, and I learned about the "Chinese Room" argument [1] in class.
How is it even an argument? It doesn't illuminate anything, and it's not even clever. It seems like the most facile wrong-headed stab at refutation, by begging the question. As far as I can tell, the argument is, "well you can make this room that manipulates symbols like a computer, and of course it's not conscious, so a computer can't be either"? There are so many problems with this argument I don't even know where to begin.
The fact that he appears to think that changing a "computer" to a "room" has persuasive power just makes it all the more antiquated. As if people can't understand the idea that computers "just" manipulate symbols? Changing it to a "room" adds nothing.
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#4There isn't much new here. Skip ahead to the first audience question from Ray Kurzweil ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=38m51s ). Kurzweil, in summary, asks "You say that a machine manipulating symbols can't have consciousness. Why is this different than consciousness arising neurons manipulating neurotransmitter concentrations?" Searle gives a non-answer: "My dog has consciousness because I can look at…
I think we are missing the gist of the Chinese room argument here.
The correct question to ask: How is a machine manipulating symbols (that someone says is conscious) different from any other complex physical system? Is New York city's complex sewer system conscious. What about the entire world's sewer & plumbing system?
Does a machine have to compute some special function to be conscious? Does the speed of computation matter? If so who measures the speed? (let us not bring in general relativity as speed of computation can be different for different observers.
Kurzweil et al's definition of consciousness is exactly as silly as Searle saying "My dog has consciousness because I can look at it and conclude that it has consciousness."
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#5There isn't much new here. Skip ahead to the first audience question from Ray Kurzweil ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=38m51s ). Kurzweil, in summary, asks "You say that a machine manipulating symbols can't have consciousness. Why is this different than consciousness arising neurons manipulating neurotransmitter concentrations?" Searle gives a non-answer: "My dog has consciousness because I can look at…
I think we are missing the gist of the Chinese room argument here. The correct question to ask: How is a machine manipulating symbols (that someone says is conscious) different from any other complex physical system? Is New York city's complex sewer system conscious. What about the entire world's sewer & plumbing system? Does a machine have to compute some special function to be conscious? Does the speed of computati…
Those are good questions, but I don't see how the Chinese room argument helps with any of them. If anything, it confuses things by dragging a fictional/impossible construct into the argument, rather than just using real examples that people actually understand.
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#6There isn't much new here. Skip ahead to the first audience question from Ray Kurzweil ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=38m51s ). Kurzweil, in summary, asks "You say that a machine manipulating symbols can't have consciousness. Why is this different than consciousness arising neurons manipulating neurotransmitter concentrations?" Searle gives a non-answer: "My dog has consciousness because I can look at…
Yeah honestly I don't get what he is really contributing (and I'm sort of an AI skeptic). In 2000 in undergrad, I recall checking out some of his books from the library because people said he was important, and I learned about the "Chinese Room" argument [1] in class. How is it even an argument? It doesn't illuminate anything, and it's not even clever. It seems like the most facile wrong-headed stab at refutation, by…
I thought the idea was that because the only part of the room actually doing things (the person), doesn't understand chinese?
I mean, agree with it or not, but I think that's a bit stronger than just, making it seem intuitively worse because its a room instead of "a computer"?
I think the important part isn't the swap of "room" for "computer", but instead the swap of "person" for "cpu"?
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah honestly I don't get what he is really contributing (and I'm sort of an AI skeptic). In 2000 in undergrad, I recall checking out some of his books from the library because people said he was important, and I learned about the "Chinese Room" argument [1] in class. How is it even an argument? It doesn't illuminate anything, and it's not even clever. It seems like the most facile wrong-headed stab at refutation, by…
I thought the idea was that because the only part of the room actually doing things (the person), doesn't understand chinese? I mean, agree with it or not, but I think that's a bit stronger than just, making it seem intuitively worse because its a room instead of "a computer"? I think the important part isn't the swap of "room" for "computer", but instead the swap of "person" for "cpu"?
Yeah but it just makes me more confused? How does that say anything about a computer then? There's no human being who doesn't understand something inside a computer.
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah honestly I don't get what he is really contributing (and I'm sort of an AI skeptic). In 2000 in undergrad, I recall checking out some of his books from the library because people said he was important, and I learned about the "Chinese Room" argument [1] in class. How is it even an argument? It doesn't illuminate anything, and it's not even clever. It seems like the most facile wrong-headed stab at refutation, by…
I thought the idea was that because the only part of the room actually doing things (the person), doesn't understand chinese? I mean, agree with it or not, but I think that's a bit stronger than just, making it seem intuitively worse because its a room instead of "a computer"? I think the important part isn't the swap of "room" for "computer", but instead the swap of "person" for "cpu"?
Yeah, but the system would be the person + the lookup tables, not just the person. The problem is, we don't tend to say "does a room with a person in it and several books have this knowledge?" Relying on a system that doesn't tend to get grouped together (there's no term for the system human + book inside room), and having only one animate object (so that people think of the animate object as the system instead of the animate and inanimate objects), as well as asking the question only about the animate part of the system, all seem to suggest that the purpose of the thought experiment is to mislead people.
A better example would be saying something like - does this company have the knowledge to make a particular product? We can say that no individual member of the company does, but the company as a whole does.
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are missing the gist of the Chinese room argument here. The correct question to ask: How is a machine manipulating symbols (that someone says is conscious) different from any other complex physical system? Is New York city's complex sewer system conscious. What about the entire world's sewer & plumbing system? Does a machine have to compute some special function to be conscious? Does the speed of computati…
Those are good questions, but I don't see how the Chinese room argument helps with any of them. If anything, it confuses things by dragging a fictional/impossible construct into the argument, rather than just using real examples that people actually understand.
I thought the point was to construct an example that most people agree wouldn't count as consciousness, then ask how a computer is any different.
Re: John Searle: Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence [video]
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are missing the gist of the Chinese room argument here. The correct question to ask: How is a machine manipulating symbols (that someone says is conscious) different from any other complex physical system? Is New York city's complex sewer system conscious. What about the entire world's sewer & plumbing system? Does a machine have to compute some special function to be conscious? Does the speed of computati…
Those are good questions, but I don't see how the Chinese room argument helps with any of them. If anything, it confuses things by dragging a fictional/impossible construct into the argument, rather than just using real examples that people actually understand.
The Chinese room argument is a nice thought experiment that strips away irrelevant details. For example, if you were to use a real humanoid robot (e.g. the Nao) in the argument, people would probably not get the argument and be confused because the robot looks fuzzy and cute.