Hot answers tagged

11

What the result means, essentially, is that in certain toy models there can be no algorithm deriving some macroscopic characteristics (spectral gap) from microscopic parameters of the models. The main import is that we get a Gödel sentence that unlike the original has some explicit mathematical meaning. Let's be generous and assume that the situation extends ...


5

Short answer is no; modern computers cannot do things that Turing machines can't do. What they can do is run very sophisticated, complex Turing machines that simulate things that Turing machines would not be able to do. This is an important point; Artificial Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms, Fuzzy Logic Algorithms, and all the other types of 'machine ...


5

Even if the man inside the Chinese room memorised every single translation instance (theoretically every possible combination which is impossible given our limited memory, but it's a thought experiment, so this constraint doesn't matter), would he understand Chinese, since he doesn't understand the meaning of any of the cards he has been presented with? ...


4

There are two different schools of thought on the possibility of freewill (barring the third school which says we don't have freewill at all): Libertarian/Metaphysical freewill: Determinism and freewill are incompatible and we have freewill. The world is indeterministic and an agent is capable of choosing among multiple possible futures, i.e. the agent "...


4

In the context of artificial intelligent agents and AI, it appears that know is just the primitive connecting those agents to their representations of knowledge. In the 1995 edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, section 6.3 Representation, Reasoning and Logic, Russell and Norvig describe that "the object of knowledge representation is to ...


3

The Turing Test is perhaps best understood as a thought experiment aimed at answering the question "if something purely mechanical could display all the perceptible signs of consciousness/intelligence, would there be any valid reason to deny it possessed those qualities?" Or, to put it perhaps more correctly, "is there any meaningful definition of ...


3

Turing wanted to eliminate any human ESP abilities from affecting the test. This ability could make it more difficult for the computer to fool the human or raise doubts about the validity of the test. He proposed a “telepathy-proof room” to cover this possibility. He was not promoting ESP. He considered it “disturbing”. By mentioning ESP he ...


3

You want to be careful when you use the word science in the context of falsifiability. Falsifiability is a property of theories in empirical sciences, i.e. sciences that are based on observation of real world phenomenon. In this sense, the Church-Turing thesis is not a scientific statement, it is a statement of logic and mathematics. Logic and math are ...


3

There seem to be several things not understood in asking this question. Searle gave an intuitive argument. He did not and still does not understand the details so there was a limit to what he could explain. It doesn't actually matter if you used books or you used a filing system or a database or you used a state of the art AI, the results would be the same....


2

Although it seems intuitively obvious that they are not computable tasks, how would one argue that telepathy, or other ESP tasks, are not computable? One would have to argue that there exists no test that can measure the phenomenon of telepathy and, further, no such test could possibly exist. In other words, not only has such a measurement never been ...


2

The Church-Turing thesis is a non-provable thesis, rather than a theorem, because it is a claim that our informal, non-theoretical understanding of what counts as effectively computable is entirely captured by what is computable by a Turing machine, or equivalently, by a general recursive function. The term hypercomputer is used to denote a computing device ...


2

But the computing machine has no sensory apparatus. It can't see the questions printed by the teleprinter in the computer's room. If it can't see the questions then it can't understand them. In fact the computer must be wired directly into the interrogator's teleprinter, and the computer gets voltages - not words. The computer might have its causality ...


2

Some suggestions, hope they're useful : Sebastian A. Wagner, The Extent to which 'Consciousness' poses a problem for the Computational Theory of Mind. ISBN 10: 3640896572 / ISBN 13: 9783640896578 Published by GRIN Verlag, 2016. Schneider, S., The Language of Thought: A New Philosophical Direction. ISBN 10: 0262527456 / ISBN 13: 9780262527453 Published by ...


2

Let's look at "Chinese Room". The words traverse the optic nerve as a complicated neural pattern with no semantic significance. Once they hit the brain, the brain can assign meaning to the letters, words, and phrase. If they hit the brain of someone only literate in Chinese, they'd look like meaningless symbols. Therefore, the room and the brain are ...


2

I think perhaps the issue at hand is the word symbol. A symbol is not a picture. A symbol is a representation of some other concept. We might talk about the queen of England being a symbol. We might talk about a gift or action being a symbolic gesture of remorse. Even when pictures are used they can represent different things: usually 5 represents the number ...


1

On the other hand a turing machine can run a program that we cannot determine its "behavior" not because it is not deterministic but because we find it extremely difficult to understand either because it is complex but also because we didnt understand the implications of the program when we programmed it.


1

See Probabilistic Turing machine : is a non-deterministic Turing machine which chooses between the available transitions at each point according to some probability distribution. As a consequence, a probabilistic Turing machine can (unlike a deterministic Turing Machine) have stochastic results; on a given input and instruction state machine, it ...


1

Algorithmically calculable answers must be part of Godel-incomplete systems, with true but unprovable statements. But a strange loop system can form a tangled hierarchy, a network of reinforcement and doubt, like language in use, where tentative uses for symbols are used then refined and meaning created relationally and through interplay and interaction. ...


1

I guess much here depends on the definition of "knowledge" and "understanding" -- today, self-driving cars already learn about their environments. (I considered putting quotation marks around "learn" but it is common practice not to in this context.) So for a weak sense of knowledge and understanding, where we require only (say) that there is information ...


1

How the mind works by Steven Pinker - https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-Mind-Concerning-Computers/dp/0192861980 Emperor's new Mind by Rogen Penrose - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0042XA2XG


1

It's bit old (2002) but Robert Harnish, "Minds, Brains, Computers: An Historical Introduction to the Foundations of Cognitive Science" ISBN 0-631-21260-4 and ...-0 is mostly about CTM and its variants, where CTM is taken in a quite wide sense (to include most forms of connectionism for example). The book devotes pages 105 to 392 to the CTM! Copies are ...


1

Here is the question: Since the causality of the computer is defined by the human programmer, doesn't that mean that the Turing test, as Turing describes it, actually tests the intelligence of two humans, the human contestant and the computer programmer? The OP also mentioned the teleprinter that takes information as input from one side of the ...


1

I believe that you've hit on what is typically referred to as the "systems reply", which is, in short, that the room system does understand Chinese. This seems plausibly true in terms of a functional definition of understanding, but getting to the point where one can conceive that the room system has a subjective experience of understanding is a much bigger ...


1

Consider the following about the Chinese Room Argument. First, strong AI is a view that programs running on Turing machines (computers) not only produce correct results but also generate consciousness when run. Second, assume there exists a program that passes the Turing test for Chinese when run on any Turing machine no matter how advanced or primitive ...


1

“Why is free will a widely discussed, established concept? Does this concept emerge from religious / spiritual doctrine?” – Yes, the idea of nonexistence of free will comes from the books of religions. Vedas, the most ancient of all books say – cause and effect are similar in nature. Bible says – what you sow is what you reap. Newton says – every action has ...


1

Firstly, Turing tests are not objective. They only show that it is possible to deceive people. Compare to a 3D hologram. It can fool humans into thinking that the object is really there though that does not mean it is there (or that our world is a big hologram). Free will is not about the fact whether human interaction is programmable or not. It is hardly ...


1

I am aware that this response is slightly off topic, however I hope it still helps. I think viewing Searls Chines room as "Intuition Pump", a concept introduced by Daniel Denett, is a usefull approach. Where thought experiments are entities that give us better or worse intuition of a certain phenomena. By slightly changing parts of the thought experiment ...


1

The only way that adding structure could make Searle’s Chinese Room Argument (CRA) semantic is if one could imagine Searle understanding Chinese by going through the programmatic process with this additional structure, whatever it is, included. Searle does not specify what a program might be asking him to do. It may be so advanced it is beyond our ...


1

To draw a boundary around a 'thing' and say 'that is a thing and is apart from the rest of the universe' is a deception. You cannot have table without wood and you cannot have wood without a tree and you cannot have tree without the Sun and you cannot have the Sun without the Milky Way. And so it is, with a person having free will, and for an AI. So to ...


1

In ours -- using any sensible definition of intelligence and will. Unfortunately, unless they analyze themselves quite closely, people that ask this question tend to automatically adopt definitions that are performance-oriented and not psychologically astute. Why can't an AI have free will? You seem to have taken this as a principle without any reasoning. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible