[Wittrs] Re: What the Man in the Room Knows (and when does he know it?)

  • From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:37:33 -0000

--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@> wrote:
> > How do you respond to his answer to the systems reply?
> So Searle is being asked questions in Chinese, giving answers  in
> Chinese, and doing it so well that you cannot tell from  the
> questions/answers that he is not Chinese.
> Searle asserts that he does that without any understanding  of Chinese.
> I call it bullshit.
> Regards,
> Neil

Neil, that was so knock-down!  Maybe you can add to my bullshit in my other 
replies today?

The point is that there might be available (and I already know you are sketical 
precisely where Searle isn't in this regard--let that be a funny between us 
that Stuart is incapable of grasping or not) a pretty swiffy program that 
passes a Turing test.

I recall that you were quite emphatic that no computer has ever passed a Turing 
test (though sometimes I think that computers are one and all smarter than some 
of Stuart's brains given his arguments).

Anyway, joking aside, Searle is simply assuming for the sake of argument that a 
computer passes a Turing test while having no necessary semantic contents.

Now, how easy/hard should it be for those here to agree if they olready insist 
that the thesis that "minds have semantic contents" is up for grabs?

Simma don na, simma don na!



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: