The Chinese Room Argument
plato.stanford.edu
The Chinese Room Argument
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#2Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#3Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
In my opinion, this argument have existential consequences: either it's not possible to emulate mind on turing machine or we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have). And i don't like the latter.
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#4Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
In my opinion, this argument have existential consequences: either it's not possible to emulate mind on turing machine or we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have). And i don't like the latter.
And the former isn't a particularly useful conclusion. The results of doing the research have a lot of potential. What potential does not trying have?
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#5Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
Because there are still too many Analytical Philosophers out there (Kuhn is the exception)
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#6Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
In my opinion, this argument have existential consequences: either it's not possible to emulate mind on turing machine or we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have). And i don't like the latter.
The argument is so flawed I don't even know where to beging.
It's the room that is conscious not the person. Of course the person can't speak Chinese. Neither can the neuron in my brain.
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#7I've never been able to figure out how this (and most other philosophical arguments against AI) don't apply just as well to individual neurons. Though I suppose if one wants to frame it as an argument that neither computers nor human brains are capable of intelligence, I might be persuaded.
In fact, for sake of argument, I claim that I am, in fact, just an elaborate system of symbolic manipulation with no actual comprehension or conscious experience, a bunch of meaningless neural impulses with no greater understanding of English than the "Chinese Room" understands Chinese; and I invite anyone to attempt to persuade me otherwise.
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#8Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
In my opinion, this argument have existential consequences: either it's not possible to emulate mind on turing machine or we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have). And i don't like the latter.
we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have)
An illusion experienced by whom?
What's the difference between having an illusion of consciousness and having the real thing?
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#9Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
Because there are still too many Analytical Philosophers out there (Kuhn is the exception)
Trust me, analytical philosophers are the only thing protecting us from the likes of Hegel and Derrida.
The purpose of philosophy is to protect us from bad philosophy.
Re: The Chinese Room Argument
#10I've never been able to figure out how this (and most other philosophical arguments against AI) don't apply just as well to individual neurons. Though I suppose if one wants to frame it as an argument that neither computers nor human brains are capable of intelligence, I might be persuaded. In fact, for sake of argument, I claim that I am, in fact, just an elaborate system of symbolic manipulation with no actual comp…
The answer to his argument is
we don't know
The man in the room is the neuron it's the house that is the brain.