Ai Forums Home Welcome Guest    Saturday, November 25, 2017
Ai Site > Ai Forums > The Artificial Intelligence Forum > The Chinese Room Last PostsLoginRegisterWhy Register
Topic: The Chinese Room

useruser
posted 1/8/2016  19:54Reply with quote
I have been interested in following the debates of people who side on one side or the other over The Chinese Room. What I don't understand is why this debate falls in the either or camp. Isn't there a middle position possible of partial awareness in this experiment?
Would like to know if anyone else has considered what I consider most probable that The Chinese Room does not arrive at a either or for machine intelligence.


tkorrovi
posted 1/8/2016  20:44Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I think why it falls to one or other side, is that flexibility in AI is so critical. Just some lack of it, and the system is in effect no more capable of any aspects of consciousness.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project

keghn
posted 1/8/2016  22:28Send e-mail to userReply with quote
At the microscope level the nerve cell work a little Chinese room, with no
consciousness.

At the human level. Human conscious brain is flexible enough to play the
part of non intelligent automatic machine.

At big government level, Everything fall back to a network of Chinese rooms.
Just like cellar level, unconscious. But with the internet, thing my change.
A macro consciousness?



Ennognósius
posted 1/9/2016  01:23Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
keghn wrote @ 1/8/2016 10:28:00 PM:
At the microscope level the nerve cell work a little Chinese room, with no
consciousness.

At the human level. Human conscious brain is flexible enough to play the
part of non intelligent automatic machine.

At big government level, Everything fall back to a network of Chinese rooms.
Just like cellar level, unconscious. But with the internet, thing my change.
A macro consciousness?


 
Yes I agree. On the lowest level, we are all made of "Chinese rooms", only together they create what we call "consciousness". Machines of the same complexity as people, or higher, will necessarily be conscious as well.


rouncer
posted 1/9/2016  11:53Send e-mail to userReply with quote
i dont think theres such a thing as chinese, just half humanoid peoples.


tkorrovi
posted 1/9/2016  16:28Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Ennognósius wrote @ 1/9/2016 1:23:00 AM:
only together they create what we call "consciousness".

 
This is incorrect. I don't wonder if they write such things in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, maybe you read it somewhere from there. But it is incorrect. A restricted flexibility of one agent restricts the flexibility of the whole system. That is, not the flexibility of every component in the system, but if you say that a system consists of many agents and together they provide a kind of more advanced system, then that's not true. Adding more inflexible agents does not increase the flexibility of the whole system, but decreases it, and thus many such agents combined does not result in a more advanced system.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 1/9/2016 4:35:00 PM

DonPatrick
posted 1/9/2016  22:54Reply with quote
As far as I can tell, the Chinese Room was only a counterargument to the Turing Test, pointing out that it could be passed by unintelligent programs. To apply it to other forms of AI is taking it out of context. And then it just becomes a really bad analogy that clouds the issue with decoys.


Ennognósius
posted 1/10/2016  01:32Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 1/9/2016 4:28:00 PM:
This is incorrect. I don't wonder if they write such things in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, maybe you read it somewhere from there. But it is incorrect. A restricted flexibility of one agent restricts the flexibility of the whole system. That is, not the flexibility of every component in the system, but if you say that a system consists of many agents and together they provide a kind of more advanced system, then that's not true. Adding more inflexible agents does not increase the flexibility of the whole system, but decreases it, and thus many such agents combined does not result in a more advanced system.

 
Basic materialist determinism. I was just pointing out that even humans are made of smaller interconnected "Chinese rooms" alone not aware of themselves or what we call "consciousness", but only together by very complex specialization they create a mechanism, which altogether is conscious, aka the human. The machine would have to work in the same way, so yes, many in way limited "agents" (cells etc...) - or various other parts of a larger mechanism specialized on very specific tasks can and indeed do create a more complex mechanism.

Last edited by Ennognósius @ 1/10/2016 1:34:00 AM

tkorrovi
posted 1/10/2016  03:11Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Ennognósius wrote @ 1/10/2016 1:32:00 AM:
I was just pointing out that even humans are made of smaller interconnected "Chinese rooms" alone not aware of themselves or what we call "consciousness"

 
These interconnected things human brain is made of, are evidently flexible, extremely flexible. So no, they are not chinese rooms, chinese room is pre-programmed, and lacks any flexibility whatsoever.

That they are flexible, does not contradict the "basic materialist determinism", but another assumption, in addition to materialist determinism.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 1/10/2016 3:16:00 AM

AiHasBeenSolved
posted 1/10/2016  04:31Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Artificial Consciousness is a killer app.

 Perl6 killer app

tkorrovi
posted 1/10/2016  16:48Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Arthur, good to see you back after a long time, and good to know that you are alive and well. It's also ok to write about the software you wrote. But you should participate in the discussion, talk about the topic as well, not just give a link to your program.

It's off-topic, but, i think perl is in trouble today. It looks like that perl6 never really goes off, and perl5 doesn't go off the mess they developed it into. Perl was once the most widely used interpreter for scripting and web, but lost its position. I like that it is similar to c and everything, the regular expressions there are also great, but one has to face the fact that today python has replaced it. Python, i don't know for what reason it became the most popular, maybe it's the former basic programmers who like it because it is the most similar to basic. The style of using keywords instead of brackets, i have really nothing against that aspect of it, it is most natural for compilers and interpreters to use keywords instead of brackets. But whatever the reason, we have to face the reality, today python is the interpreter to use, it is today what perl once was.

We have somewhat agreed that, the programming languages preferred in this forum, are C and Python.

Last edited by tkorrovi @ 1/10/2016 5:07:00 PM

Ennognósius
posted 1/10/2016  22:31Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 1/10/2016 3:11:00 AM:
These interconnected things human brain is made of, are evidently flexible, extremely flexible. So no, they are not chinese rooms, chinese room is pre-programmed, and lacks any flexibility whatsoever.

That they are flexible, does not contradict the "basic materialist determinism", but another assumption, in addition to materialist determinism.

 
In what way are they flexible? I'm talking of the fundamental chemical basis of every living organism. On the lowest level of their molecular structure and even underneath, they are just complex structures reacting to each other and to the outside world and thus together they create cells and organs et cetera... This is basic materialism. There is no "fluency" to discuss here, that's just how things are, until you start to add various "hocus pocus" theories as a soul and other different nonsense-like idealist concepts. Either way the Chinese room argument is faulty on the grounds expecting that somehow people are more complex and have some sort of a "higher consciousness" than a would-be machine intelligence, even though in the core we would be working on the same principle, made of the same "stuff".

Also the basic particles and the laws of physics in our universe are indeed "pre-programmed", so determinism indeed does assume that any life is just a complicated mechanism chain-reacting to the outside environment. Consciousness is a blank term, describing a certain form of complexity and the capability to react and perceive the outer world by an organism. With enough complexity, just as in the case of humans, machines can be created, which will be conscious and if we're putting it on scale, even "more conscious" that humans are today, whatever that may look like...

Last edited by Ennognósius @ 1/10/2016 10:35:00 PM

tkorrovi
posted 1/11/2016  00:22Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Ennognósius wrote @ 1/10/2016 10:31:00 PM:
In what way are they flexible? I'm talking of the fundamental chemical basis of every living organism. On the lowest level of their molecular structure and even underneath, they are just complex structures reacting to each other and to the outside world and thus together they create cells and organs et cetera... This is basic materialism. There is no "fluency" to discuss here, that's just how things are, until you start to add various "hocus pocus" theories as a soul and other different nonsense-like idealist concepts. Either way the Chinese room argument is faulty on the grounds expecting that somehow people are more complex and have some sort of a "higher consciousness" than a would-be machine intelligence, even though in the core we would be working on the same principle, made of the same "stuff".

Also the basic particles and the laws of physics in our universe are indeed "pre-programmed", so determinism indeed does assume that any life is just a complicated mechanism chain-reacting to the outside environment. Consciousness is a blank term, describing a certain form of complexity and the capability to react and perceive the outer world by an organism. With enough complexity, just as in the case of humans, machines can be created, which will be conscious and if we're putting it on scale, even "more conscious" that humans are today, whatever that may look like...

 
> In what way are they flexible?

Oh yes, i thought that there you go. This is you think where you break through.

There is a thing called self-development. Self-development is where the next formation inside something, is caused by the previous formation. We cannot see much of it in other than living things, yet such things we can observe. Like things that resonate, we know they resonate differently having different shapes, etc. What is that caused by, is the previous forces in the object, plus the outside forces, causing new forces in the object. This is not determined by the forces outside, it is caused by things causing each other inside the object. Or a neuron in an artificial neural network, they change their functionality based on that outside and inside. Not yet self-developing, but also not completely pre-programmed. The flexibility is how many different formations can be caused by any previous formation. How much cannot form, determines how inflexible the system is. Like when the system is fully pre-programmed, then nothing can form based on the causes inside, such system is extremely inflexible.

> On the lowest level of their molecular structure and even underneath, they are just complex structures reacting to each other and to the outside world

Yes, but what matters is how are they connected together. Not every complexity is the same. They can be flexible in self-development, or completely inflexible.

> There is no "fluency" to discuss here, that's just how things are

There is self-development to discuss here.

> until you start to add various "hocus pocus" theories as a soul and other different nonsense-like idealist concepts

No, these are not hocus pocus theories, none are they "nonsense-like idealist concepts", self-development happens very really in the material things.

> somehow people are more complex and have some sort of a "higher consciousness"

It is not only important how complex, not every complexity is the same. Humans are not conventional machines, they are qualitatively different, their complexity is qualitatively different. Conventional machines, i mean which movement or change is pre-determined, and always the same. Complexity is not the same even in the conventional machines though, like a text editor is mor flexible than a concrete mixer.

> Also the basic particles and the laws of physics in our universe are indeed "pre-programmed", so determinism indeed does assume that any life is just a complicated mechanism chain-reacting to the outside environment.

No, output being determined by the input, that is completely pre-programmed, and the determination of the internal components, are not the same things, they are completely different things, it is wrong to confuse things by wrongly assuming that these two are the same.

> Consciousness is a blank term, describing a certain form of complexity

Now you said that yourself, consciousness is a *certain form of* complexity. It is thus only a certain kind of complexity, and thus not a blank term.

> With enough complexity, just as in the case of humans, machines can be created, which will be conscious

No, not with "enough complexity", but with a *certain kind of complexity*, now you even contradicted yourself. Complexity alone is not enough, not every complexity is the same.

> even "more conscious" that humans are today, whatever that may look like...

Humans are better than any machines, near perfectly advanced, thus machines cannot be more conscious. But in general if you compare humans to machines, it's like you compare the whole earth to a grain of sand.


So, when i assume a simple thing, that there is self-development, i'm accused for that reason saying that there is a mysterious "fluency", and for that reason going further, accusing me in "hocus pocus theories" and "nonsense-like idealist concepts". This is not a scientific argument, rather a pseudo-scientific lashing.

So why there never is any middle ground in the chinese room argument? Because as you see, certain people are very extreme, and they always take a firm and fixed position, at one end.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 1/11/2016 12:53:00 AM

Ennognósius
posted 1/21/2016  22:48Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 1/11/2016 12:22:00 AM:
> In what way are they flexible?

Oh yes, i thought that there you go. This is you think where you break through.

There is a thing called self-development. Self-development is where the next formation inside something, is caused by the previous formation. We cannot see much of it in other than living things, yet such things we can observe. Like things that resonate, we know they resonate differently having different shapes, etc. What is that caused by, is the previous forces in the object, plus the outside forces, causing new forces in the object. This is not determined by the forces outside, it is caused by things causing each other inside the object. Or a neuron in an artificial neural network, they change their functionality based on that outside and inside. Not yet self-developing, but also not completely pre-programmed. The flexibility is how many different formations can be caused by any previous formation. How much cannot form, determines how inflexible the system is. Like when the system is fully pre-programmed, then nothing can form based on the causes inside, such system is extremely inflexible.

> On the lowest level of their molecular structure and even underneath, they are just complex structures reacting to each other and to the outside world

Yes, but what matters is how are they connected together. Not every complexity is the same. They can be flexible in self-development, or completely inflexible.

> There is no "fluency" to discuss here, that's just how things are

There is self-development to discuss here.

> until you start to add various "hocus pocus" theories as a soul and other different nonsense-like idealist concepts

No, these are not hocus pocus theories, none are they "nonsense-like idealist concepts", self-development happens very really in the material things.

> somehow people are more complex and have some sort of a "higher consciousness"

It is not only important how complex, not every complexity is the same. Humans are not conventional machines, they are qualitatively different, their complexity is qualitatively different. Conventional machines, i mean which movement or change is pre-determined, and always the same. Complexity is not the same even in the conventional machines though, like a text editor is mor flexible than a concrete mixer.

> Also the basic particles and the laws of physics in our universe are indeed "pre-programmed", so determinism indeed does assume that any life is just a complicated mechanism chain-reacting to the outside environment.

No, output being determined by the input, that is completely pre-programmed, and the determination of the internal components, are not the same things, they are completely different things, it is wrong to confuse things by wrongly assuming that these two are the same.

> Consciousness is a blank term, describing a certain form of complexity

Now you said that yourself, consciousness is a *certain form of* complexity. It is thus only a certain kind of complexity, and thus not a blank term.

> With enough complexity, just as in the case of humans, machines can be created, which will be conscious

No, not with "enough complexity", but with a *certain kind of complexity*, now you even contradicted yourself. Complexity alone is not enough, not every complexity is the same.

> even "more conscious" that humans are today, whatever that may look like...

Humans are better than any machines, near perfectly advanced, thus machines cannot be more conscious. But in general if you compare humans to machines, it's like you compare the whole earth to a grain of sand.


So, when i assume a simple thing, that there is self-development, i'm accused for that reason saying that there is a mysterious "fluency", and for that reason going further, accusing me in "hocus pocus theories" and "nonsense-like idealist concepts". This is not a scientific argument, rather a pseudo-scientific lashing.

So why there never is any middle ground in the chinese room argument? Because as you see, certain people are very extreme, and they always take a firm and fixed position, at one end.

 
Would you mind giving me a link to any respected scientific article, book or literally any sort of a publication regarding this concept of "self-development"? Because sorry, but I just don't understand what you have written here. This definition of yours is extremely vague and incomprehensible to me. This whole idea seems unscientific, like you are just pulling it all out of your behind with nothing to back your statements up.
Also there is no "perfect" advancement and even if it existed, humans would never classify. That's just ridiculous.

Last edited by Ennognósius @ 1/21/2016 10:52:00 PM
  1  
'Send Send email to user    Reply with quote Reply with quote    Edit message Edit message

Forums Home    Hal and other child machines    Alan and other chatbots    Language Mind and Consciousness  
Contact Us Terms of Use