Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PassionatePossum t1_ivnplxx wrote

The Chinese room argument always seemed like philosophical bullshit to me. Right from the start, it assumes that there is a difference between „merely following rules“ and „true intelligence“.

Whatever our brain is doing, it is also following rules, namely the laws of physics that govern how electrical charges build up and are passed to the next neurons. I hope that nobody is arguing that we couldn‘t simulate a brain at least in principle. Because suggesting otherwise would be to believe in magic.

And if there is no fundamental difference between following rules and intelligence, the whole argument just becomes silly since intelligence isn‘t something that is either there or not, it becomes a spectrum and the only interesting question remains at which point we define intelligence as „human-like“.

16

doesnotcontainitself t1_ivqlssr wrote

If I remember right, Searle himself holds that understanding relies on how the system of rules is physically and biologically implemented in an environment. Part of his conclusion is that a non-biological machine can’t understand (or be conscious). But there are plenty of phenomena like this; no magic needed.

Also, the argument isn’t assuming your distinction, it’s arguing for it from other premises that seem intuitive initially.

Does the argument succeed? Probably not, for reasons others have given. But you can’t dismiss it as magic and nonsense.

4

PrivateFrank t1_ivp7i5c wrote

>Right from the start, it assumes that there is a difference between „merely following rules“ and „true intelligence“.

It depends on how flexible those rules are, right? Are the rules a one to one lookup, or are there branching paths with different outcomes?

If the man in the room sees an incoming symbol, looks it up in the book, and sees only one possible output symbol, and sends that out, then he doesn't need to understand Chinese.

If he has more than one option of output, and needs to monitor the results of his output choices, then he's no longer just a symbol translator. He's now an active participant in shaping the incoming information. To get better at choosing symbols, he's going to have to learn Chinese!

1

waffles2go2 t1_ivq71kz wrote

The whole point of this thread is that it is VERY INTERESTING at which point we define intelligence.

So you're both totally wrong and correct in one post - glad you came around.

1