Step Right Up & Test Your Merit! Can U Beat The Chinese Room & Save the Field of AI? Can U The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae?

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by GSTalbert1, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    As you all may know AI was founded by this an hero homo faggot aspie:

    [​IMG]

    The Turing Test, or the TT (and later developed into the TTT or T-3) is explained as such:


    The essence of the TT is that if a machine can imitate human cognitive behavior to the point where it is indistinguishable from a human being it is said to possess Artificial Intelligence. Herbert A. Simon claimed that "There are now in the world machines that think, that learn and create. We have solved the venerable mind-body problem, thus explaining how a system composed of matter can have the properties of mind." This position is reiterated in latter AI researchers and has trickled down into the unwashed masses via pop-culture.

    [​IMG]
    The Chinese Room essentially is a philosophical argument that shoots down the concept of AI as it is popularly known, or so it seems. Some have argued that for the past 30 years the field of cognitive psychology should be renamed to "Trying to disprove the Chinese Room." See if you can figure out a way to diffuse the logic bomb placed under SKYNET:​

     
  2. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    TL;DR Try G.W. Leibniz's Monadology (1714), where he spells it out shorthand:

     
  3. scumhook

    scumhook
    Expand Collapse
    Managing account details

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    20,018
    Occupation:
    Fellator of the homeless
    Home Page:
    Is there a TL;DR for the TL;DR?
     
  4. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    Why absolutely​
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Solution

    Solution
    Expand Collapse
    Everyone is boring

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2011
    Messages:
    9,229
    Home Page:
    Oh! That make so much more sense, I translated it like...
    DNR.
     
  6. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    You're absolutely correct, it lacks a more accessible pedagogical structure built around an enticing example.
    Perhaps a gaggle of azn girls engaging in hard core pornographic activities.
    In short moar boobs:

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Moscow

    Moscow
    Expand Collapse
    It's not just about football

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    3,910
    Occupation:
    Judging you
    Home Page:
    whilst I'm not even gonna try and engage that particular philosophical conundrum, I'd probably end up tying myself in knots to be honest, I do think it's a very interesting question, can a robot/computer be human? will a Machine intelligence ever be advanced enough to understand the concept of humanity, will it be advanced enough to be capable of understanding full stop?
     
  8. MedicalParrot

    MedicalParrot
    Expand Collapse
    Pffffft

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,937
    Occupation:
    Oh yeah
    Home Page:
    I lost it at, "Can u The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae?"
     
  9. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    On that from the Chinese Room:

    I'll elaborate moar tomorrow Moscow, bedtime for Bonzo here.
     
  10. CallMeMaggot

    CallMeMaggot
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,477
    Home Page:
    Bwhahaha

    He wish

    Certainly, it's a strong argument

    But it has its own flaws, some of them pretty strong (I believe Searle is totally cheating when he takes as possible that a reasonably small set of rules, the "program", can be sophisticated enough to cover all the possible sets of questions/answers) some of them, like the solipsistic one, kinda lame

    I doubt it very much.

    To be something remotely akin to "human", you need at the very least a "meaty" body and and a neuro-endocrine system. Or a fucking good simulation of those two.

    Can a blind person understand colors? Nope, u need functional eyes and a functional visual cortex for that


    Why not? We are already that, thinking machines
     
  11. CallMeMaggot

    CallMeMaggot
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,477
    Home Page:
    Lol, pretty much my point, u beat me while I was typing my post
     
  12. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    The systems reply is seriously flawed, though Stearle takes a direct approach to the problem that accurately difuses the "system's reply", I think that you can kill it before you even get to that point.

    Someone does indeed understand Chinese, but it is not the system, it is whomever set up the system of instructions: IE The programer. The understanding is not on the paper, as the system is, in itself, a mere extension of the mental states of the programer that developed the system (and not the man inside) and that of the individuals engaging the system. The system in and of itself, apart from those that speak Chinese, has absolutely no understanding. The goal of Strong AI is to produce a system that independently reproduces and possesses mental states.

    Note how they side step the inclusion of the programmer and his capacity for Chinese. They system as a whole, without the individuals who understand Chinese has no capacity for understanding Chinese. How did they miss that diddy? Oh well, Dennet is a jackass.

    Gotta love the Darwin Flame Wars, excellent source of lulz.

    The claim here is making speculations on possible programs in the future and is also claiming that the mind is nothing more than a mere program. The reality is that computers are tools that extend the most simplistic EFFECTS of cognition, nothing more. They do not, I repeat, DO NOT actual produce anything in and of themselves. Virtual reality is merely an exceptionally crude and basic extension of mental imagery no different than a painting or a sculpture. Without the mental states that they extend from, programs are less than nothing.


    Yeah, but it's a thought experiment. He's only including that because he's anticipating the cheating responses of the Strong AI defenders who would have brought it up if he hadn't. You never would have been able to sit 2 persons on a beam of light, much less have them look at each other and "observe" but that didn't diminish it's importance for Einstein. I don't mean to say that I disagree with you, I believe that is inherently impossible for a static program/system to imitate a dynamic one. I believe that is why there will never be a system of code that a human can't beat. A: because a human created it, and B: the code is static the human being is dynamic, Dynamic will beat static. That's a major issue with laws, it's the spirit of the people that uphold them not the letters that are important.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. CallMeMaggot

    CallMeMaggot
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    14,477
    Home Page:

    I think I didn't get right the system reply...I though that their proponets were precisely saying that the system has to include the programmer to work

    It seems that's the position of Searle, lol


    Totally concurr

    Here, I must disagree...if I get it right, that's the goal of any and all AI researchers

    The Strong AI crew what they want is a system that independently reproduces mental states without really having them

    Which sounds pretty difficult, lol

    Well, with some kind of feedback from reality (reality, not necessarily a human mind...) a machine can come with novel solutions to a problem

    For example, "genetic" algorithms and evolutionary networks have had success in some design problems with antennas.

    But of course, that doesn't mean that they understand shit...we can say that it's the inner structure of reality what is doing the hard work...

    Again, agreed...at least at the present moment of VR

    But a point that AI defendants have is that nature has already proved that intelligence and conciousness can arise from components that don't have any of that.

    We are the proof.

    At least some of us, I mean.


    The impossibility to seat on a light beam is not relevant for the core of Einstein's mental experiment.

    The impossibility of writing on paper detailed enough instructions to turn e.g a The Member Formerly Known As Baya into an intelligent being IS at the core of Searle's experiment...just that I didn't realize he was precisely making that reduction to absurd.

    So nevermind, lol.

    I think you are mixing concepts a bit.

    I myself can produce in a moment a code or number (static, obviously, as any other number) that couldn't be "beated" (factorized) in years, with the best human minds and Crays working togheter.

    That comes from the fact that many mathematical operations (and thus, logic ones too, it's the same) requires a very assimetrical amount of procesing power to go in a direction that in the contrary, far as we know.

    That's not the crucial point, imho

    The crucial point is, as you said, that a system has to be dynamic to be anythingh like an intelligence. The very concept of a static inteligence is absurd to me.

    Feedback loops are essential, because, for starters, the only possible way to measure or judge the existence of intelligence is by checking its adaptation to the enviroment. Its resolution capacity upon new situations, or a change in the old one.

    How can you measure a intelligence without a external situation which poses a problem/need?

    For me, as already I have said in another nerdy threads like this, intelligence and conciousness are process, not states...and then, it goes in their very definition the necesity of dynamism to even exist.

    Those kind of process maybe can be labeled as instances of one or more programs, like in informatic jargon

    Or maybe not...that another subject, and a really muddy one.

    Bottom line: on this one, I agree with u in a 99%
     
  14. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    No, we pretty much agree on this point, we actually are in agreement generally on matters of neurology.

     
  15. PerpetuallyAroused

    PerpetuallyAroused
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,373
    Occupation:
    Superhero Scientist
    sigh this could be called the AUTISM test.
     
  16. GSTalbert1

    GSTalbert1
    Expand Collapse
    Girlvinyl

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    6,754
    Occupation:
    Part Time Substitute Teacher Full time Teal Deer
    It has The Member Formerly Known As Baya in the title and I'm the OP, what DID you expect my good man?
     
  17. MrGask

    MrGask
    Expand Collapse
    #FreeGask

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    12,133
    Occupation:
    Bastard child of Jigsaw and Kayako
    Home Page:
    Most humans don't even understand the concept of humanity, and the definition varies by culture. Teach a machine to hate itself, and it will finally be human.