Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Topic started by: Luigison on July 19, 2010, 10:51:20 AM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chattyshirts.com%2Fdesigns%2F280%2Fyou-are-being-monitored.png&hash=be85cb83dba7885f2344c4efc0a01703)
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
I'm postulating that Glorb is one angry person.
-
He's not angry he just has his own way of explaining things.
-
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
-
How is the term "meat machine" cynical?
-
It sounds pretty cynical when compared to "intelligent beings," let alone "creatures made in the image of God."
-
That, and the term "meat machines" deliberately accentuates our supposed futility, putting humans in a lower light than other oragnisms.
*Bracing for move to NatDT in 3... 2...*
-
Believe what you want to believe. Being called a machine doesn't bother me a bit.
-
I have a feeling that if you were treated as a machine, it would bother you.
-
He's not angry he just has his own way of explaining things.
Yeah, that UGH [wtd] IS THIS AND WHY???? way.
-
I have a feeling that if you were treated as a machine, it would bother you.
Not entirely sure what you mean by that. I treat my machines with care and respect.
-
I'm sure you take good care of them, but is that for their benefit, or your own?
Also, how can you respect an inanimate object?
-
Also, how can you respect an inanimate object?
Um...I just do?
-
I think he's getting at the why. Do you respect your machines because by doing so you're ensuring that they will continue to operate for your benefit in the future, or are you doing it because you care about their position and stature in "life"?
Assuming you respect other people's property, you don't do it because of the property itself, but because it has value to another human being-- a human being you at some level have respect for.
I think the point is you treat "machines" and humans differently (and you'd be insane not to), and if you were fine with being treated as a machine, you'd be saying you're fine with being treated as a lesser. Personally, I think that's a weird place to take the discussion and ultimately is irrelevant.
"Meat Machine," at least to me, has a negative connotation. As I believe being "human" is something intrinsically valuable, removing that from the equation will of course devalue it.
-
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".
Holy [dukar], for once I agree with Weegee (and his cool tophat dude). I don't see why people view cynicism and cold detachment as anything resembling a positive trait; if you feel the need to refer to human beings as "meat machines" and the like without any hint of irony (or realization that you sound like Invader Zim), prove yourself correct. Go strip butt nekkid and mate in the woods with all the other free will-less humanoids like you're apparently supposed to.
-
I think I was the first person to use the term "meat machines" in this thread, but I did not intend to lessen the value of human life by it. I used the term "absurd" and "merely" to show my disgust with the idea. (I first read the term decades ago in a science fiction story.) PaperLuigi's "very complex programs" sounds better and may be closer to the truth, but I still get this nagging feeling that my whole is greater than the sum of my parts. Complexity can rise from randomness though. Maybe this feeling is just my own feeble mind trying to continue an illusion.
When I was about seven or eight years old someone about my same age came over to visit. We were playing darts in the carport when my visitor discovered a frog and start throwing darts at and hitting it. This made me sick and angry. I'd had not problem throwing darts at the board, wall, or even a bike tire, but seeing someone hurting another living thing hurt me. Is this feeling of value for life an innate thing that most of us have? I say this to make the point that I'd value life over a nonliving machine no matter if the organism had a soul or the machine was sentient.
In case it was taken seriously I'd like to also point out that my third post was simply a joke that paraphrased a movie, song, and internet memes to follow Glorb's joke (I assume).
-
Like I said, such things are ultimately unknowable. I don't know if I'm just "complex program" or "a being made in the image of God" and I honestly don't care.
-
The only possible outcome that is left is to find our non-perpetual reason of existence by self exertion, which of course is inherently just a matter of faith.
You cannot program souls, not experiences bought on by countless factors to make decisions, nor DNA for that matter into silicon chips. Maybe when Moar's law finally hits; "nanomachines" will ultimately prevail human design. I try not to think of these things in a daily basis to prevent myself from going postal.
A can just imagine a C64 being breast-fed while wearing a diaper, then later wearing pajamas, than a business suit.
-
Is this feeling of value for life an innate thing that most of us have?
I think so. In some, said feelings have been conveniently engineered out via upbringing.
Again though, these things are ultimately unknowable. We will never know if we have free will or not because this isn't something you can test for. We might as well just make the best of it and just live.
-
...just live.
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
/thread