Luigison's Dual #1: The Chinese Room

[Luigison]

   I've given considerable thought as to what my next thread/topic should be, but in the end decided that all my ideas were old hat and that instead I should wait until I discovered a new (to me) concept that intrigued me.  So, here it is...

The Chinese Room
   You are trapped in what appears to be a small office store room with large stacks of paper and boxes of pencils.  On one side of the room is a slit in the floor that you assume  is for waste disposal and on the other side is a water fountain and snack machine.  There's a file cabinet filled with lots of empty folders and a table and chair in the center of the room.  You have a bound hard copy of an English computer program that translates Chinese in your backpack, but you can only speak English.  There's a dim light overhead that provides enough light to read the program.  After reading through the first few pages you notice a slip of paper sled into the room through the tiny slight under the door.  On the paper are Chinese characters that you painstakingly translate to English using the program.  You store what you've learned in the file cabinets and set our to write a response in Chinese.  When it's complete you slide your answer under the door.  This process repeats over several days, but eventually you are released.  You have proven to you captors that you are a fluent speaker of Chinese. 

   The Chinese Room is a thought experiment proposed in the 80's by John Searle to show that computers and A.I. don't understand their input and simply reply with output based on there programming.  In other words, computers cannot be sentient.  The person in the room uses the tools given to appear to be fluent in Chinese in the same way a computer may use its program(s) to appear to be intelligent.  To me this thought experiment begs two questions: 1) Can computers ever be sentient?  2) Is human intelligence essentially a flesh and blood computer program?  Or more specifically, is freewill real?

[PaperLuigi]

Yeah we talked about this in my philosophy class last semester while we were covering the mind.

Our professor ultimately concluded that there's no way of concretely proving that humans are either sentient or a "computer program" and that we shouldn't worry about it.

My opinion is that humans are not sentient, just very complex programs.

[Luigison]

After studying biochemistry in college and philosophy from books such as GEB and the internet I came to the same conclusion, but after reading several of Kurzweil's books I came to believe that computers would one day become sentient.  These two conclusions/believes are obviously at odds with one another.  Both cannot possible be true, can they?  It'd be almost absurd to think they we are merely meat machines while our computers could become sentient. 

While I understand that many people have such dichotomies (for example, smoking kills, but it won't kill me) and often fail to see the connection or simply ignore it/them; such dualisms bother me.  To rectify the two I could conclude that humans are sentient and computers may someday also be, or that humans are not sentient and that computer will therefor never be sentient either.  I still haven't come to a firm conclusion on the matter. 

In the end this may not be a subject for the dinner table, but I'm not talking about religion or politics.  This is about one of my favorite past times: thinking about thinking.  What are your thoughts?

[Glorb]

Who gives a [dukar] I can punch a computer with my fists. Seriously I could kick any computer's ass
anytime
anywhere

COME AT ME BRO COME AT ME

[Luigison]

We're a generation of men raised by computers. I'm wondering if another computer is really the answer we need.

Wait, sorry.  Wrong topic.  So, you are just a testosterone driven machine of hate. 

Despite all your rage, you're are still just a rat in a cage. 

Oops.  Sorry again.  Topic derailed.  You win.

So, Glorb's a meat machine.  Stimulus, response.  Anyone else?

[Turtlekid1]

This cannot possibly avoid moving to non-Dinner Table areas, so I'll limit my opinion on the matter to this: a human's soul is what differs him from a computer or a robot. 

If you don't believe in the concept of the soul or in a creator, then there's no reason to assume that humans are any different from advanced computers, nor can they have any more purpose.

If you do, and you hold to reformed theology, it raises uncomfortable questions about free will anyway.  :P

[PaperLuigi]

If you don't believe in the concept of the soul or in a creator, then there's no reason to assume that humans are any different from advanced computers, nor can they have any more purpose.

Not necessarily, the absence of a creator doesn't denote the absence of purpose. If we really are just "meat computers" as it were we should do our best to create meaning regardless. "Just because" in other words.

Since there's no way to prove the existence of souls via the scientific method, we might as well just make the best of life and not think about it too hard. We are but small specks in the middle of a vast universe after all. Purpose has every reason to elude us.

after reading several of Kurzweil's books I came to believe that computers would one day become sentient.

What exactly did Kurzweil have to say? I'm not sure how computers will be able to perceive anything if their makers cannot perform this action themselves.

[Black Mage]

I want to say, "Yeah, sure, humans are just complex machines that operate at a level computer programs have yet to emulate", but then I think about myself and have a hard time completely agreeing with that.

I don't have any solid backing for my thoughts, but when I can sit here, connect dots, make logical assertions, and then decide to do something completely different-- all while realizing it is not logical, I have to think there's some difference between humans and machine AI. I make my own decisions whether they're rational or not and I can't help but think it's anything more than freewill.

When I was still in school, I wrote a Neural Network in Scheme. I'm familiar with the concepts and Machine learning is an area of interest of mine, but to struggle with the question of "Are we really the same?" isn't something I do often. I figure, I make my own decisions, and if someone or something wants to take credit for them-- so be it. I'm still going to go right ahead and keep making them regardless.

[Glorb]

So can someone explain this to me? Why do science geeks get these raging hard-ons for explaining that humans have no free will, we respond to stilulus, blah blah blah, all while using charmingly Johnan Vasquez-esque phrases like "meat machine"?

Like, honestly, what is the point? Who started this whole thing? Why do I stumble upon something like this every ten minutes on this board all of a sudden?

[Chupperson Weird]

Because, scientists really really hope they can make androids that act human. I guess. So postulating that people are machines makes their task seem easier?

[Trainman]

I'm postulating that Glorb is one angry person.

[PaperLuigi]

He's not angry he just has his own way of explaining things.

[Weegee]

So can someone explain this to me? Why do science geeks get these raging hard-ons for explaining that humans have no free will, we respond to stilulus [sic], blah blah blah, all while using charmingly Johnan Vasquez-esque phrases like "meat machine"?

Cynicism has become synonymous with intelligence. These days, no scientific mind will be taken seriously unless he holds a postmodern, misanthropic viewpoint. Hence, "meat machines".

┌─┐
┴─┴
ಠ_ರೃ

[PaperLuigi]

How is the term "meat machine" cynical?

[Turtlekid1]

It sounds pretty cynical when compared to "intelligent beings," let alone "creatures made in the image of God."