The Chinese Room argument .....

..... or "Do computers have minds" ?


"Chinese room thought experiment.

Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All of the questions that the human asks it receive appropriate responses, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being. Most proponents of artificial intelligence would draw the conclusion that the computer understands Chinese, just as the Chinese-speaking human does.

Searle then asks the reader to suppose that he is in a room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English version of the aforementioned computer program and processes the Chinese characters according to its instructions. He does not understand a word of Chinese; he simply manipulates what, to him, are meaningless symbols, using the book and whatever other equipment, like paper, pencils, erasers and filing cabinets, is available to him. After manipulating the symbols, he responds to a given Chinese question in the same language. As the computer passed the Turing test this way, it is fair, says Searle, to deduce that he has done so, too, simply by running the program manually. "Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don't speak a word of Chinese," he writes.[1]

This lack of understanding, according to Searle, proves that computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the same position as he — nothing but rote manipulators of symbols: they do not have conscious mental states like an "understanding" of what they are saying, so they cannot fairly and properly be said to have minds."

Read much more at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

*******************************************************

The philosophy of artificial intelligence considers the relationship between machines and thought and attempts to answer such question as:[1]

Can a machine act intelligently? Can it solve any problem that a person would solve by thinking?
Can a machine have a mind, mental states and consciousness in the same sense humans do? Can it feel?
Are human intelligence and machine intelligence the same? Is the human brain essentially a computer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_artificial_intelligence

*******************************************************

What do you think ? Do computers have minds ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
..... or "Do computers have minds" ?


"Chinese room thought experiment.

Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Supp **************************************

What do you think ? Do computers have minds ?

I will attempt to answer these questions:

“Can a machine act intelligently? “

I think that is impossible to answer until you define exactly what you mean by “intelligently” in this context.

“Can it solve any problem that a person would solve by thinking?
Can a machine have a mind, mental states and consciousness in the same sense humans do?
Can it feel?
Are human intelligence and machine intelligence the same?
….
Do computers have minds ?”

The answer to all these questions is, given the current computer technology, obviously no -so far, no computer come even close to matching the human brain in any of these respects.
BUT, it is just a matter of time (possibly a few more centuries) before computer technology advances enough so that it can accurately simulate all the processes/states of the human brain and for it to be able to have/do all these things (even have "feelings" which are simply a class of states of the brain).

“Is the human brain essentially a computer?”

Yes -because I think that is a reasonable analogue despite that fact that the human brain is nothing like any of the current computers.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
..... or "Do computers have minds" ?


"Chinese room thought experiment.

Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Supp **************************************

What do you think ? Do computers have minds ?

Although the Chinese Room isn't really an argument for or against the uniqueness of human consciousness, most people interpret it to mean that no computer can do what a human can do ("understand" ) because all it does is manipulate symbols.

However, if the Chinese Room occupant (man or machine) passes the Turing Test, what precisely is the difference? I see two problems with the argument:

1. The argument presumes that the entirety of the Chinese language and grammar can be stored in a reference tome of some kind. Unfortunately, given the combinatorial nature of language, this is not possible.

2. Considering that people do not actually think in their native language, but in the language of mental symbols (coined "mentalese" by Stephen Pinker and many others), the same argument could be made that we don't understand our own native language. But we do, at least in the "common sense" definition apparently vital to Searle's conception of thought.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
..... or "Do computers have minds" ?


"Chinese room thought experiment.

Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Supp **************************************

What do you think ? Do computers have minds ?

First, isn't the speed at which the answers can be delivered also relevant? I remember the argument that the lack of errors could be a decision factor in identifying the machine from the man so such a machine needed to have errors. These two are connected, because an imperfection that might not very relevant for the purpose of the test, can still be relevant in the practical dealing of such a test.

And here we come to the (obvious) conclusion that the Turin test is not a precise limit for determining when artificial intelligence begins and ends.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
..... or "Do computers have minds" ?


"Chinese room thought experiment.

Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Supp ...[text shortened]... **************************************

What do you think ? Do computers have minds ?

Ivanhoe, you might also find this thread useful:
Thread 102843

Originally posted by Palynka
Ivanhoe, you might also find this thread useful:
Thread 102843

In this thread I posed some questions that I didn't get any response to:

How do you test if a bunch of silicon chips has an awareness, a sense of self? Do you just ask it?
If you ask a child of two years "Do you have a sense of self?" Can you rely on its answer?
How will you know for sure that a heap of silicon and a bunch of program lines has awareness?

Perhaps I can get some answers here... Or perhaps there are no answers, and therefore we will never know when we have artificial awareness ever.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In this thread I posed some questions that I didn't get any response to:

How do you test if a bunch of silicon chips has an awareness, a sense of self? Do you just ask it?
If you ask a child of two years "Do you have a sense of self?" Can you rely on its answer?
How will you know for sure that a heap of silicon and a bunch of program lines has aware ...[text shortened]... here are no answers, and therefore we will never know when we have artificial awareness ever.

The same way you do with humans. Duh.

Originally posted by Palynka
The same way you do with humans. Duh.

I know that a 20-year have awareness, I just ask.
Does a two year old child have awareness? Can I ask? Can I rely on the answer.
And if I ask a computer program, what answer will I have? And can I rely on this answer?

There is no way to know if you have a computer program that have awareness. If so, how do I know?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I know that a 20-year have awareness, I just ask.
Does a two year old child have awareness? Can I ask? Can I rely on the answer.
And if I ask a computer program, what answer will I have? And can I rely on this answer?

There is no way to know if you have a computer program that have awareness. If so, how do I know?

I know that a 20-year have[sic] awareness, I just ask.
FAIL.

Does a two year old child have awareness? Can I ask? Can I rely on the answer.
Some do. What stops you? Of course not, asking directly is a ridiculously naive approach.

If so, how do I know?
You do know that there is a field called Psychology, don't you? 🙄

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]I know that a 20-year have[sic] awareness, I just ask.
FAIL.

Does a two year old child have awareness? Can I ask? Can I rely on the answer.
Some do. What stops you? Of course not, asking directly is a ridiculously naive approach.

If so, how do I know?
You do know that there is a field called Psychology, don't you? 🙄[/b]

Fabian: I know that a 20-year have[sic] awareness, I just ask.[/b]
Palynka: FAIL.

Please elaborate.

Fabian: Does a two year old child have awareness? Can I ask? Can I rely on the answer.
Palynka: Some do. What stops you? Of course not, asking directly is a ridiculously naive approach.

Of course, it's very naïve to believe that you can get a straight answer that you can rely on. So, from this, has a two years child have awareness? How do you know?

Fabian: If so, how do I know?[/b]
Palynka: You do know that there is a field called Psychology, don't you? 🙄

Of course I do know about psycology but I don't know how psychology think in this matter?

So how can you know anything about others awareness, 20 year old man, two year old child, a computer program, or anything? Is awareness even properly defined?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Of course I do know about psycology but I don't know how psychology think in this matter?

If you admit your ignorance perhaps you should abstain from trolling this thread with comments like: There is no way to know if you have a computer program that have[sic] awareness.

Originally posted by Palynka
If you admit your ignorance perhaps you should abstain from trolling this thread with comments like: There is no way to know if you have a computer program that have[sic] awareness.

If I did know everything, then I wouldn't be asking any question at all. Now I'm just curious of the opinions of others. Nothing wrong with that, is it? That's why we're debating in the first place.

Please, anyone else who want to contribute in this matter?

I think you can prove the awareness of the 2 year old. You just need to observe his actions and reasons behind it. Our actions as human beings are driven by either reason (which would be the manipulation of signs and responding in a logical sense) or by intuition.

Now, if we were to act only by reason and not have any feelings attached to our actions, we would be no different than a supercomputer.

When we use our intuition, we begin to defy what logic dictates, and this is when our emotions drive our actions. This type of action is (at least I think) what separates us from computers and what makes us aware.

The fact the we make errors (unlike computers) is (again, I think) because either we lack knowledge to make the logical choice or we have a bias on that situation in particular. When I say bias I mean we feel nostagic, rage, sadness, or anything that might affect our judgement.

So if we observe the 2 year old child, and notice the emotions behind his actions, this should be proof of his own awareness.

Originally posted by dannyUchiha
I think you can prove the awareness of the 2 year old. You just need to observe his actions and reasons behind it. [...]

So if we observe the 2 year old child, and notice the emotions behind his actions, this should be proof of his own awareness.

Exactly! But maybe we can do even better than that. We can also produce specific situations on which to observe them and ask specific questions, from which we can infer if they do or not. Tests can then be designed to apply to a larger sample to test at what average age a normal child shows self-awareness and, perhaps more importantly, self-consciousness.

Perhaps the child is capable of self-awareness one he acknowledges the existence of other persons outside of his familiar nucleus. Once they become interactive in a society, their actions are already biased, tending to act on its own interest or the interest of those closest to him or herself.