From: Daniel Radetsky (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 20 2006 - 17:02:24 MST
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:21:29 +0000
Charles D Hixson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> But the real objection is that his proposed "thought experiment" isn't
> constructively specified. Until someone builds a "Chinese room" and runs it
> through it's paces, then we have no reason to believe that it can be done.
The fact that X has not been done is not sufficient for us having no reason to
believe X can be done. Otherwise, we might as well give up on the whole
singularity thing right now.
Now, Searle only claims that the Chinese Room is in principle possible, not
that you could actually do it.
> More particularly, I would assert that it couldn't be done without the
> "Chinese room" system itself becoming conscious
> and that no "book of rules for translation" is, even in principle, possible.
See, I could just assert that you are wrong in both cases.
> This isn't to assert that mechanistic translation isn't possible, but rather
> to assert that stateless translation isn't possible. Once the states are a
> part of the system, then the system can potentially itself be conscious.
What in God's holy name are you talking about?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT