From: micah glasser (micahglasser@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 19 2006 - 00:10:31 MST
1. Do you think that there is some kind of test for
consciousness?...consciousness is first person and subjective therefor there
can be no objective, i.e verifiable, test for its existence.
2. Searle is not arguing for any kind of test. He attempts to show that even
if a universal Turing machine (be it digital or otherwise) were able to pass
a Turing test of sorts, it is still not a human level intelligence (because
it lacks 'understanding') with the implication that no UTM is capable of
human level intelligence.
The problem with this argument is that, a. Searle is correct that the kinds
of programs being critiqued are not capable of intelligence. b. there is no
computer program that can even come close to passing a Turing test when
there is not a superficial list of possible responses. > It does not follow
that if a UTM can pass a Turing test then it is not intelligent.
Turing's test still stands. Any machine that can pass a Turing test will
have human level intelligence and human level intelligence of this kind is
indistinguishable from the intelligence of a human being - whether that
human being is a zombie or not.
3. If I have interpreted you correctly then it appears that you are
profoundly confused, but perhaps I am the confused one and I have merely
misunderstood you.
On 1/19/06, Woody Long <ironanchorpress@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> *From:* micah glasser <micahglasser@gmail.com>
>
> See this paper <http://www.kurzweiltech.com/Searle/searle_response_3.htm>to read Ray Kurzweil destroy Searle's ridiculous argument. This is my
> favourite argument from Ray - it should be standard reading for any
> philosophy of mind or AI class. I recommend reading it as it is quite short.
> -----------------------------------
>
> As a builder of machine consciousness, I am interested in Turing and
> Searle solely for test ideas for the soon-coming pack of MC Contenders.
> From this point of view, the basic Searle argument perfectly describes the
> classical computer systems of his age - which are not conscious
> machines- and points the way for TESTING for the next,
> post-classical computer system's critical features - which are conscious
> machines.
>
>
> The argument from Searle himself, as acknowledged in the Kurzweil paper -
>
> "I believe the best-known argument against strong AI was my Chinese room
> argument (Searle 1980a) that showed that a system could instantiate a
> program so as to give a perfect simulation of some human cognitive capacity,
> such as the capacity to understand Chinese, even though that system had no
> understanding of Chinese whatever."
>
>
> The Searle argument boiled down to a proposition -
>
> A simulatory, card-shuffling, dumb system with no understanding of the
> cognitive task it is performing, can never be considered a strong AI
> conscious machine.
>
>
> As an MC builder, I absolutely agree with, and support this assertion, and
> will apply it to all MC Contenders, including myself.
>
> Can you imagine a dumb, card shuffling classical (1950-2005) computer
> system - expert system or otherwise - running a program that is a "perfect
> simulation of some human cognitive capacity" (our debate capacity being
> textual entailment recognition), even though that system "had no
> understanding" of this cognitive capability "whatever."? Sounds like a
> perfect description of all the "rule of thumb" driven, dumb card
> shuffling, **classical computer systems** I have ever seen, including rule
> based expert systems and robot languages. Such dumb card shuffling,
> simulatory, classical system can never attain the status of a strong AI
> conscious machine.
>
> However, it implies the alternative: if the system DOES have an
> "understanding of the cognitive capability' so that it does pass the Searle
> test - i.e., Hey look there - that CHINESE MAN in the Room DOES have an
> "understanding of the human cognitive capacity"!! The classical dumb, card
> shuffling NON-CHINESE MAN doing the task NEVER can be said to be a strong
> AI, conscious machine who "understands the human cognitive capacity" being
> performed. However, if the post-classical, human level consciousness
> duplicating "droid" CHINESE MAN is put in the room, who DOES have an
> "understanding of the human cognitive capacity" CAN be said to be (or
> partially be) a strong AI conscious machine.
>
> Ken Woody Long
> http://www.artificial-lifeforms-lab.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
-- I swear upon the alter of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT