CRA (Chinese Room Argument) What is the point? Attack on Turing Test. Could have a computer pass the TT by following rules. Those rules are based.

CRA (Chinese Room Argument)CRA (Chinese Room Argument)

What is the point?

Attack on Turing Test.

Could have a computer pass the TT by following rules.

Those rules are based on symbol manipulation and pattern recognition.

Following such rules does not show human intelligence.


Logical View

(T and E) => S T=theory, E=thought experiment,

S = some fact about world

~S but S “known” to be false

-------------------

E derives ~T If believe E, then ~T – theory shot down


(T and E) => S

~S

-------------------

E derives ~T

What is T?

What is E?

What is S?

Destroy the CRADestroy the CRA

Consciousness to humans seems like a mystical, magical process, but it can be broken down into simple processes occurring in the brain. Given enough time, it would be feasible that a computer could be given an amount of rules that is comparable to the number found in a human brain. The key to shattering the Chinese Room argument is to define human thought as the product of following rules. He argues that computers just identify patterns and respond to them…well, that is basically what the human brain does. We create and learn different patterns and then respond and feel accordingly. When confronted with a task we use information we have gathered to piece together answers, using patterns. These patterns we use aren’t much different than the ones used in computer programs. We know very little about the way in which the human brain operates. Perhaps our lack of knowledge on how the human brain functions versus our conclusive knowledge on how a computer operates makes it difficult to accept that computers can think like humans.

The “We Are All Rule Followers” Argument


I could argue that Searle couldn't hope to process the information in the Chinese room anywhere near as fast as a computer, which could possibly help argue that computers have consciousness.

If it appears to be human, and reacts just like a human than it is difficult to make meaningful distinctions.

Although Searle may not understand what he is saying, he is still using human thought process to provide an answer to the question. As a result, some level of intelligence is necessary.

Attack the CRA


There is also the idea that the computer does not think because we have not allowed it to do so. Should this machine be built with one objective and one objective only we have stifled its capabilities. Who knows what would be possible from the crevices of its “mind” should we allow it to think outside the box.

However, if a computer were programmed to be as self aware as a human, would we consider it as such? We are only self-aware to an extent. Where do we draw the line? We have no idea really who or what we are. We don’t know if we “were” before birth or what will happen after death.

Others

Simulating Searle Simulating Searle

But the computer does a model or a simulation of a process. And a computer simulation of a mind is about like computer simulation of digestion. I don't know why people make this dumb mistake. You see, if we made a perfect computer simulation of digestion, nobody would think, "Well, let's run out and buy a pizza and stuff it in the computer." It's a model, it's a picture of digestion. It shows you the formal structure of how it works, it doesn't actually digest anything! That's what it is with the things that a computer does for anything. A computer model of what it's like to fall in love or read a novel or get drunk doesn't actually fall in love or read a novel or get drunk. It just does a picture or model of that.

A Quote From Searle

In AgreementIn Agreement

I feel that Searle’s argument about reading a novel accurately depicts this concept. In this case, a computer is used to represent input, in the form of the ASCII code, as English letters. While a computer is capable of representing human thoughts in the form of letters, that does not mean that a computer understands the concepts that the letters signify. Computers simply are devices that fit their purpose: storage, processing and simplification of information.

A computer does not live, it does not experience as a human experiences. It can display programmed abstractions of human experiences, but it isn’t aware of the implications of any of these abstractions in reality.

In AgreementIn Agreement

if a human could memorize the entire Chinese dictionary, just memorize it like one big rule book, than he could walk around in China and have many conversations and would appear to speak Chinese, yet he wouldn’t understand a thing said to him or even what he says back! This is what a computer would be like that passes the turing test. It would appear to have all the faculties of human linguistic intelligence, but in reality, it is only a model—an inert, lifeless, man made model of our own linguistic intelligence. Although artificial intelligence is certainly possible one day, it will not come in the form of a computer program, for a program as such is only a pale reflection of the conscious depth of the human mind.

Don’t AgreeDon’t Agree

Using digestion as an example is a faulty argument, as digestion is an autonomic response of the body, and a computer could easily replicate it if artificial organs were made. Thought is very different than digestion, and a computer could replicate the intelligence of a human with circuitry in a physical sense quite easily.

What if we create a robot that can actually digest food. He has the enzymes, etc., and we have given him all the connections necessary to detect what he’s eating and the way in which his robot body is digesting it (relative to how a human is aware of their digestion, that is).

A computer just takes energy differently than a human. It uses electricity rather than a pizza. While this shows that a computer is not a human, it also does not prove that a computer is better or worse than a human. Are we trying to make computers to be exactly like humans, or are we just trying to make computers a different sophisticated entity that could aid and work with humans? The problem that I have with this is that we are thinking that organic intelligence is the only thing that counts, and that it is the only thing that we want to create. Why does something actually have to work exactly the same way that a human works to be considered intelligent and alive (or if not alive, then something that can think and do things for itself)?

Don’t AgreeDon’t Agree

If you tell the machine how to act when “x” button is pushed, then it is simply following the rule you made for it. However, picture if you will a computer that had choices. If I press button “x” but the machine is given a rule where it can choose to respond with reaction “w or y or z”, can we claim this machine now is just still “thinking”? Individual reason and choice are two of the key elements that make human emotions so special. If someone kissed me and I automatically responded with another kiss this would be myself merely programmed to return affection. In reality, if someone kisses me I have multiple options for response, a physical push away, tears, a smile, I get to “think”, to choose what I want. If a computer is allowed to choose its interactions a personality begins to form and the computer itself is no longer a machine following rules but a “living” entity.

On The FenceOn The Fence

Searle’s argument would make much more sense if he stated that thought involves these physical states. Maybe for Searle, things such as digestion and intoxication are the “x” factor that causes human thought to be different from computer “thought.”

I personally believe that consciousness has a biological basis. I don't necessarily believe that computers couldn't evolve to have consciousness, perhaps through incorporating biological materials, but based on our current conception of what a computer is, I don't think it can have consciousness. I agree to some extent with Searle’s argument – that computers merely represent the appearance of something occurring, and a computer does not actually fall in love, get drunk, etc. Like I said, though, if we assume that the ability to fall in love or get drunk is biologically based, then if computers evolve to incorporate this then we may someday see drunk computers falling in love.

On The FenceOn The Fence

I agree with Searle that it is impossible to conceive of a computer actually experiencing emotions, or being aware of experiences, or being aware at all. Once again, however, these human characteristics are to some extent also taught to humans by interaction with other, more experienced humans. And it’s clear that emotions themselves are the result of evolution; humans evolved from less advanced animals, and biological organisms, whose recognizance of emotion and retention of experience were limited at best. If unconscious biological species could develop acute minds and feelings, why can not unconscious technologies do the same?

What’s Happening at The SingularityWhat’s Happening at The Singularity

These statements appear in semi-conflict (or at least, non sequiturs):

a) By the time of the Singularity, there will be no distinction between humans and technology.

b) This is not because humans will have become what we think of as machines today, but rather machines will have progressed to be like humans and beyond.

The question: Your opinion if this all hangs together?

As an aside, "Intelligent Design" seems to fit in here some way. For instance, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer. Aren't we the intelligent designers in the evolution of technology? Maybe I am missing the point.

Your ResponseYour Response

Whether computers will be able to retain the same amount of knowledge as humans is not necessarily in question. However, humans have the ability to make the information subjective and tainted. Humans have the ability to lie and embellish facts to convey them in such a way that is their own. Although computers are able to reveal irrelevant and sometimes incorrect information, they do so based on a deficit of inputs for which they have no output. Computers are unable to give out false or elaborate information based on their situation. Humans can adjust to their surroundings and respond based on the benefits and consequences of their answers.

By saying “by the time of the Singularity, there will be no distinction between humans and technology,” Kurzweil is not denying that humans and machines are going to become more alike, he’s just saying that machines are going to become more like humans, and not the other way around. We’re not meeting in the middle on the issue (which is the scary part) but rather the computers will be catching up to humans and then, probably, surpassing us. I’m not sure I understand how they are going to program more “evolved” forms of themselves.


Consider for example the cave man or even earlier versions of our prehistoricgenetics. Would we call them human? For some the answer would be “yes” and others would say “no”. But consider if we up-held the caveman’s mind and body to our current evolved standards. Could you call them “human” then? Humans in the future won’t exist. “Humans” in the future will only be a mere remnant of what we are today. Indeed in the future we many not even call ourselves humans but rather “cyborgs” or some other fanciful name

The fusing of biology and technology does not suggest that technology will be able to supplant biology. The other factor is, should something like this truly appear on the horizon, I find it hard to believe that humans wouldn’t do everything possible to stop it. The “it would be too late” argument overemphasizes the speed of all these transformations. A scientist won’t be in his lab with a 99.99997% tech-human and dabble with that last billionth away it is from fully human without thinking twice. And if he doesn’t think twice, someone will be for him.


For one, a paradigm shift is a shift in perspective, such as the world going from flat to round, or from Newtonian Physics to Einsteinian Relativity, not an actual, physical shift of something, like biological to technological

It’s questionable whether technology is actually evolving. It’s definitely improving, but computers are not actually competing with each other for survival. They’re not even alive!

Technology is a mere extension of our advanced frontal lobes, it is a tool created by our opposable thumbs, it’s not another opposable thumb itself. Computer processes are reflections of our own mental processes, they are not mental processes themselves. To say that technological evolution is eclipsing the “slow,” “weak,” “inefficient” biological evolution is ridiculous and presumptuous. Hearing Professor Conery talk about DNA made me realize how complex we are as organisms. Technology seems pretty slow, weak, and inefficient when you compare it to the miracle of DNA.


The real issues seems to rest on whether a human that is enhanced in any way by a machine remains more human than machine. Also, the conversation concerning the digital divide illustrates a human dependency on computers.


Kurzweil claims that the returns of evolution are shaped by the chaos of the outside world. If this is true, humans are the chaotic environment for which technology evolves. There can be no singularity if technology is to remain the tool with which we make our existences more comfortable. Until technology seeks comfort for it’s own species, I see no singularity. Even then, if technology grew identity, and rose to live under the same conditions humans do, technology still wouldn’t be human. It would be, as Kurzweil said, “like human.” Well… monkeys are “like” humans, and we evolve in response to the conditions of a shared environment. Still, we share no “singularity”.

Intelligent DesignerIntelligent Designer

From WikipediaFrom Wikipedia

An intelligent designer, also referred to as an "intelligent agent," is the entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life and who supposedly has left scientific evidence of this intelligent design. They also use the term "intelligent cause" implying their teleological supposition of direction and purpose in features of the universe and of living things.

Intelligent DesignerIntelligent Designer

QuestionQuestion

If machines evolve into a new evolutionary line, or even if humans evolve into a new cyborg line, are we humans the intelligent designer of this new line?

Seems like there might be a religious response to this.

Let’s look at your responses.


I see where the Intelligent Design argument comes in, in that the new form of life (i.e. computers, or bots) has to have a spark of life somewhere and be designed ultimately by someone or something with an intellectual superiority. Maybe this is a model of our own creation.

In those little conversations Kurzweil seems to think that we will be worshiped and doted on by the intelligent computers, much like gods.

And a Final QuoteAnd a Final Quote

Seriously. It seems to me that this guy likes to just sit around and imagine all the cool stuff that will be available in the future, and then publish it in books. I’m writing a paper in my philosophy class about the Confucian quote “Learning without thought is labor lost, thought without learning is perilous.” To me, I think this guy has done a lot of thought without learning or, reflection without the proper education to make the inferences that he does about evolution, etc. It’s “perilous” because one can get into trouble by contradicting oneself : )

Ok, a Final Final QuoteOk, a Final Final Quote

I really just don’t know about books. I do know: I read the news online every morning because I don’t like to recycle, and newspapers are big and inky and expensive. It occurs to me that this line of reason is a little like saying, “The Christmas holiday is really stressful when compared to Spring Break. Soon Christmas will die out, because people will begin to find more and more good reasons to stay away from their families over the long holiday. Soon, Christmas will be replaced with the superior holiday: Spring Break. In the future, when we cruise the channels over the Christmas holiday we’ll see some girl, flashing a camera and screaming, “Christmas Break, 2045”… and everyone will be somewhere warm, family free, and drinking.

CRA (Chinese Room Argument) What is the point? Attack on Turing Test. Could have a computer pass the TT by following rules. Those rules are based.

Documents