The Chinese Room - 60-Second Adventures in Thought (3/6)

Free learning from The Open University http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy

---

An argument against computers ever being truly intelligent.

(Part 3 of 6)
Playlist link - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL73A886F2DD959FF1

---

Study 'Philosophy' at the Open University:
http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/ind...

---

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Machine
• artificial intelligence
• computer science

[sporg]

With this one (unlike some of the others such as the twin 'paradox', where there are no accepted alternate explanations), the Chinese Room has been challenged many times. (For example, Searle makes it seem as though 'looking up the instructions' is a trivial task (therefore making the task of the person simple). In reality, one can argue that intelligence is actually embodied in this part of the task, and it's a HUGE part! So it's not a valid thought experiment...

[TheBiddleMan]

It depends what you define 'thinking' as. I believe computers can 'think', they receive input just like a human brain, and then transmit an output. Something distinctly human is lacking though in that process. Understanding and context. However, understanding and context is a product of computation, just far more complex than a computers. It has to do with the ways neurons are linked to eachother in related clumps. Much more to it than this of course, but comments must be short :)

[EmeraldSky33]

@danielearwicker

YES. :-)

[EmeraldSky33]

I tend to think that the Chinese Room and the man inside it, taken as one entity, DOES know Chinese. However, since the man does not have instantaneous access to the rules and the characters, he doesn't know Chinese. I'm with @sporg.

[Xzalander]

Personally, my logic is that a computer can only ever know what -we- already know. In the event it finds something we do not know, it will not be able to articulate what it was, requiring us to know about it first to articulate it for it.

[baltabeeb]

wtf is this?

[haikiri2011]

I think a computer can come to life with a program that keep always trying to find patterns and meanings with data, like sound, image or text. Than with those results he will build his concepts and never stop. Aways when something different aproach, he will do as we do. Just another one, a few diferences, not enough data to be upper some other main question and keep going... More and more knowledge, aways considerating all factors. No mistakes....

[saenmb]

I would refer to On intelligence by Jeff Hawkings if anyone would like to understand this question more

[baeronautics]

then how are some humans considered smart. So the only to make artificial intelligence by humans is by basically assembling cells by cells , organs by organs to make a smart functioning artificial intelligence?

[Wutwut1n1]

I'm discussing this in one of my philosophy classes and my teacher keeps taking Searle's side. I don't know if he does this because he needs to teach the rest of the class to understand, because he wants to piss me off, or because he's stupid.

[packe777]

@sporg Nevermind the Chinese Room, but Gregory Chaitin work's on Godel's theorem has finally buried all this positivist dogma of Dennett, Churchland and similar. The Omega number, or Chaitin's constant isn't computable at all. It is irreducible complex algorithm, that is true just by accident. I'ts compatible with Penrose's ORCH-OR, as the platonic information (pattern) embedded at the Plank scale. The implications are mind-boggling.