We're "wasting our time" because you clearly don't understand the theory. We are trying to prove/disprove and what you offer is somewhat slow thinking...

1 - Captain obvious says "everyone knows this" - it seems that you somehow believe this is "done" and Searle (and others) are trying to push it forward and iterate.

Why do you hate the scientific process or did you invent something better?

2 - Derp - your own opinion, not something Searle offers, nor is it relevant if you understand to the problem (it is given that you cannot tell the difference between someone who understands Chinese and the output of the "searcher").

Overall, great evidence as to why we need more discussion on this topic.

Great job!

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.

The "special" part is what we can't figure out. It's not any math that we are close to solving and I really don't think we're even asking the right questions.

Millions of years of evolution yet we are going to figure it out with some vaguely understood maths that currently can solve some basic problems or produce bad artwork...

So pretty special....

It's vague and wishy-washy because it's a working hypothesis that is looking for something better to replace it or those to augment it.

I'll agree it's primary weakness is the vague definition between what makes something "thinking" and what is simply a long lookup table but this is the key question we need to riff on until we converge on something we can agree upon....

This is a way more mature approach to driving our thinking than this basic "maths will solve everything" when we feely admit we don't understand the maths....

LOL, I think you've got it totally backwards.

The Chinese Room assumes that the person explicitly DOES NOT understand Chinese but the "system" (the wall that masks this person) behaves as if it does to the person feeding it input.

You further support the argument in your final statement...

Was that really what you intended to do?

LOL, I love the Chinese Room debate, for those who think it's simplistic, I suggest they stick to coding....

Great post and I love reading the dense responses.

>https://medium.com/@brianjleeofcl/this-piece-should-be-retracted-ca740d9a36fe

Relevant bits - perhaps spouting off with a N=1 isn't the best look...

In practice, when SCOTUS denies the petition, the ruling made by the relevant appellate court is a legal precedent only within the the district (Second) where the circuit court has made its ruling. This means that a different court—say, the Ninth, which includes Silicon Valley—could go ahead and issue a ruling that directly opposes that of the Second. At this point, it becomes more likely that SCOTUS would grant cert since it would be a problem that under the same federal legal code, two opposing versions of case law could exist; after which the court would hear arguments and then finally issue a decision. Until that hypothetical occurs, there is no precedent set by a SCOTUS decision to note in this matter.

So a programmer who doesn't understand the law should take a harder look at what they post on Reddit unless the like being totally owned...

Flat Top Johnnys (who I read may be moving to Allston...).

Yes, they stay "on brand" and interesting in a market full of dreck...

One in five witches was a male, but I bet you don't care about minorities...

Wait... so hypothetically, will I be able to trade my daughter to a neighboring state?