From: Woody Long (ironanchorpress@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Jan 19 2006 - 15:40:41 MST
Long live Searle! haha lol. Anyway, so be it. Actually I thought we were
just getting to the meat of it, to the Searle Argument Evaluation method,
which I predict we all will be using to make our claims of strong AI:
1. The brain/consciousness functions/is structured like this, according to
our theory X. [i.e., the Chinese Man who is understanding the cog.
capacity being done.]
2. Our system is functioning / structured in the same way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
3. Our system is an artificial brain / conscious machine / "Real AI" /
strong AI / AGI. [if you except our theory X]
Mark my words, and see if we are not handed this by you and Goertzel, me,
the Rosens, PIBOT etc. in support of the claim of strong AI. I have coined
this Searle Test method the Consciousness Duplication Method: AI Company
Press Release - "We have detirmined that the brain/consciousness is an X
system, and we have duplicated it in a machine, so that the machine is a
strong AI conscious machine.
This is a brand new take on Searle.
But anyway, I digress. To Loosemoore and Goertzel, I'm sorry but I cannot
give you a clear response to your Challenges without discussing things like
Searle's consciousness duplication theory and Searle's idea that the system
must "understand the incoming language and task" as would the Chinese Man
with his human level consciousness. So we must let it drop here. (somewhere
else? email me). But it was a great ride.
So let us never speak of Searle again! But if you do as I described him
please remember to quote me! haha lol
Have a great day,
Ken Woody Long
http://www.artificial-lifeforms-lab.blogspot.com/
-------------------------------------------------
"Droid Builders Do It With The Lights On."
> [Original Message]
> From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience@pobox.com>
> To: <sl4@sl4.org>
> Date: 1/19/2006 4:41:48 PM
> Subject: KILLTHREAD: No More Searle Please
>
> Richard Loosemore wrote:
> >
> > Searle's Chinese Room "argument" was nonsense when it was first
> > proposed, so it depresses me to see people still talking about it.
>
> I agree. It's not just that I personally think the argument is stupid.
> Searle's Chinese Room has been played out over and over again in
> philosophy journals. Nobody's going to say anything new about it, just
> replay the opening moves of gambits exhausted long ago.
>
> http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search?q=searle+chinese
>
> Sincerely,
> Eliezer,
> SL4 List Sniper.
>
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT