OK, I'll address the rest later but in the meantime let's try a little thought experiment.
Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output.
Suppose that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.
Does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
It doesent understand anything. Its way way too simple, is doing serial calculations, and has no consousness. Its absolutely capable of responding correctly. Thats not thought. or consiousness. Its programmed to do as instructed. Even if it can learn and add to that program. We need to tell it how. And its still not a neural network so will never be consious. To be consious, and so "undestand" meaning etc requires a parallel system. A neural network. Just as used by insects that are currently being copied in a limited way. Although too simple so far.
Suppose, for example, that I am put in a closed room that contains an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient papers, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. I could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the book's instructions, and produce hand-drawn Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, that I would do so as well, simply by shuffling Chinese symbols and following instructions in English manually.
There is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and myself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing a behavior which is then interpreted by the user as demonstrating intelligent conversation. However, I would not be able to understand the conversation. I don't speak a word of Chinese, Therefore, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
Correct. But you are aware of doing it.And can change things, refuse, and are self aware. A serial computer never will be. My desktop has 4 cores. That is like a brain consisting of 8 neuons. And no AI software. Even a fruit fly has 100,000 cores! And each core has its own memory. And each core connects to maybe 5k of the others. We are nowhere near this.
Without "understanding," or biological, life-based, volitional "intentionality", we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word.
Correct. Its a calculator.
Your argument is logically fallacious because it relies on a non-hierarchical use of concepts i.e. it's as if someone were discussing the architecture of a penthouse while denying the existence of basements and ground floors and staircases. But ground floors and basements are essential to an understanding of the concept of "penthouse."
The concept "penthouse" has no meaning independently of those less abstract concepts any more than the concept "thinking" has a meaning independently of life, free will and consciousness.
Here we go again. You have gone off the rails with all your big words and think they can achieve something. I read it 6 times and its word soup.
We already know that something that is processing info in the way our serial computers do cant ever understand or be consious. Thats why we are starting to clone the neural networks in insects. They have already done this for super simple creatures. A 100k brain cells in a fruit fly in a massively interlinked neural network, can absolutely learn. And make the fruit fly behave as it does. And it probably has an extremely dull and limited level of consiousness. But its too simple as a neural network to be a maths genius. It can likey detect and go towards the light or the smell of its food for e.g. Mostly its 99.99% simple algorythms. It runs along without free will just as you do. It is basically Ai in the same way we are developng computers that are. It likely doesent have enough cells to really understand anything. Certainly not enough for its brain to develop a model of the world internally to present to it as a map of reality as yours does. Thats your awareness.
You are using the word "thinking" independently of its essential roots. You are literally "stealing" meaning away from its necessary context.
I dont give a fig about your infatuation with words. They do not matter. What matters is whats true. This is why philosophers and philosophy are a waste of time. You think playing with the meanings of words and stuff is important. They are not. I dont care words are just labels.
I dont care about your definition or about words or your heroes from yesteryear in the time of ignorance. Only the reality of what is true. We will eventually make a full 100k neural network. We are 10% there now. And it makes machines behave like a fruitfly. With NO programming. The next job is to up that neural network 10, 100, a million times on a chip. Not a serial chip. One where every transistor can talk to many of the rest simultaniously. Just like your brain. A network. A parallel network. At this point we will have copied the fruitfly brain. And if it has all the same input sensors, such as eyes, taste, smell, gyros for stable flight or whatever sensors it uses, muscles, temp sensors etc then it could be said that it too has a tiny spark of consiousness. If not then we will multiply that until it can like a baby program itself, and develop a level of thinking and consiousness of maybe a mouse. But moors lay says we will get there much much faster than you expect. Give it a decade.
The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.
Thats all indistinct bullshit. ahts a stolen concept? Dont tell me I dont care. What "genetic roots"? Again, dont answer, I dont care. Who cares what she thinks. Who cares about words. Who cares about what philosophers "think" they understand practically nothing in this world today. Try to unlearn all that ancient wordplay garbage and follow the SCIENCE!!!
