Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_wilson
That was the point of Searle, who came up with it about 35 years ago, was making,
|
Well, yes.
To clarify:
Searle's famous thought experiment "The Chinese Room", is either flawed or is something I don't understand. The logical conclusion (I think) is that if does it demonstrates that AI cannot be sapient, then the same logic demonstrates that sapience doesn't actually exist in any thinking system. Which I don't think is what Searle actually meant. By "nobody actually speaks Chinese" I meant that the criterion by which Searle concludes that the AI doesn't actually speak Chinese applies to any system (including human consciousness) that purports to speak Chinese.
Quote:
|
but he was a cognitive scientist who said the room and by extension all machines lack what he called intentionality, and so the strong AI concept was false; machines can only mimic human behavior.
|
It hasn't gone away, smart people still seem to think as Searle does. For example, that seems to be position of tantric in the quoted post above. This indicates to me that I'm missing something (most likely), or they are (less likely).
Quote:
|
But since then further studies on the mechanics of the brain support the view the humans can only mimic human behavior as well, so a machine that mimics human behavior is just as good.
|
I don't see how this flaw in the Chinese Room isn't apparent even without current neuroscience. The idea of intention being an emergent property of the brain isn't a new one. The idea that you can't prove that anybody else is sapient is also not a new one.
Quote:
|
If you want to take that as meaning no one understands Chinese, and thus no one truly understands anything, that takes us back to the position of Socrates, which is not a terribly bad place to be.
|
Maybe, except for the part where you back a coup to replace democracy with despotism and get executed. That part is no bueno.