Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:10 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Can machines think? 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16376
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3618
Thanked: 1384 times in 1084 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

 Can machines think?
Can machines think?



Sun May 11, 2014 10:01 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1788
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 744 times in 556 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Can machines think?
In this chapter he talks about Searle’s famous "Chinese room" thought experiment.

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

I always thought that a good (at least partial) response was one that Blackburn gives, which is that’s like saying that neurons don’t understand Chinese. I assume Searle anticipated this response, I haven’t read the literature.

Blackburn mentioned this, but using Wikipedia’s description:

Quote:
Searle holds a philosophical position he calls "biological naturalism": that consciousness and understanding require specific biological machinery that is found in brains.


This doesn’t seem all that convincing to me, and Blackburn finds this to be unsatisfactory.

I certainly see a difference between saying a person “understands” Chinese while a computer does not, but it seems to be a matter of degree.

As Blackburn notes, it is much more difficult for a computer to pass a Turing test of any complexity than it was thought it would be in the early days of computer science and AI.

Again from Wikipedia,

Quote:
Searle identified a philosophical position he calls "strong AI":

The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds.

The definition hinges on the distinction between simulating a mind and actually having a mind. Searle writes that "according to Strong AI, the correct simulation really is a mind. According to Weak AI, the correct simulation is a model of the mind."


I guess I am more sympathetic to the Strong AI position, but I’m very doubtful we’ve seen any technology that would approach being usefully described in those terms.



Sun May 25, 2014 10:12 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7193
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1123
Thanked: 2176 times in 1731 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Can machines think?
Quote:
The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds.


It isn't merely a matter of simulating the information. You'd have to simulate the chemistry as well, including some slightly more complicated organic systems. But why would we want to run that experiment? Why would we want to create an intelligence that could know true fear, only to have it panic when it finds itself a man-made creation without a body? Perhaps we would want to create one with only warm orgasmic feelings. But I don't think our AI's should be created in such a way. If what we seek is the processing of information, then we should leave out emotions. Emotions are an evolutionary construct meant to guide us through tribal life. The same can be accomplished with operating rules. Informational only, no pain but also no pleasure.

Such an intelligence, if self-aware, would be alien to us at the level of emergent phenomenon. Meaning, we would understand how to build it and would have its blueprints, but we could not close our eyes and imagine what it's conscious feels like, subjectively.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun May 25, 2014 1:08 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1788
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 744 times in 556 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Can machines think?
Interbane wrote:
Why would we want to create an intelligence that could know true fear, only to have it panic when it finds itself a man-made creation without a body? Perhaps we would want to create one with only warm orgasmic feelings. But I don't think our AI's should be created in such a way. If what we seek is the processing of information, then we should leave out emotions. Emotions are an evolutionary construct meant to guide us through tribal life. The same can be accomplished with operating rules. Informational only, no pain but also no pleasure.


I don't think we really have a choice, we're not about to collectively decide not to pursue more and more advanced technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_a ... telligence



Sun May 25, 2014 1:26 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2021. All rights reserved.

Display Pagerank