This script is part of... The Philosophy of Mind eBook, available on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QNWKQL UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QNWKQL Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QNWKQL India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QNWKQL Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QNWKQL Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QNWKQL The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9 UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9 Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9

Chinese Room Argument definitely blew my mind, it was very convincing

@jamesmhango2619

10 ай бұрын

It has its critics

@yurineri2227

10 ай бұрын

@@jamesmhango2619 yes that's true, and I've heard them, but honestly, what doesn't have critics? I still thinks it holds up to them, and that's what matters :)

@crunchybroll4731

6 ай бұрын

What unconvinced you?

I think the major problem with the Chinese Room is that it vastly understates the complexity of what is proposed. In order for the CR to mimic a true mind that book of rules needs the capacity to take in unknown symbols in the context of a sentence, ask questions about this unknown symbol, get more inputs, then generate new rules on the basis of all of that. Effectively, then, it's the changing rulebook that _is_ the mind. One key part of the mind is the capacity for self reference and self update. This sort of behaviour could, potentially, be programmed syntactically in a generalized fashion, though for computers (and brains) I think this is not a truly viable way to produce a consciousness. Instead, I would suspect that the best method of obtaining consciousness would be to rely on emergent functionality. We consider something conscious when it _acts_ in a manner that we recognize as conscious. This gets back to Alan Turing's test for computer consciousness, and the polite assumption that we make that others around us have mind even though we have no way other than their functional outputs upon which to decide that. For the room, if you could genuinely develop such a room with such a set of rules (with a human who could operate fast enough to be convincing), I think we would, and should, consider the whole system (person plus rules) to _be_ conscious. The fact that either part (human or rules) _alone_ is not conscious it no more important than noticing that a neither a CPU nor a RAM chip alone are a computer, but you have one once they are combined. It's the interactions that decide if something is conscious or not, the emergent effects of the parts interacting.

@eurobeatenthusiast2157

5 жыл бұрын

I think you bring up a good point, although I think you are missing one thing. Although it is true that we assume others around us have minds, that is only because we cannot observe the inner working of their brains. We can, however, observe the inner workings of a computer, thus making its appearance of consciousness irrelevant. Also I find it strange that you are mentioning emergent properties as the basis of conciousness, as that's something Searle practically invented. Yet you and Searle seem to differ radically when it comes to AI, why is that?

@robindude8187

5 жыл бұрын

@@eurobeatenthusiast2157 I find we have as much access to the inner workings of the brains of others as we do to the inner workings of a computer. The major difference is that, to a large extent, we understand what's happening in the computer better because we built them intentionally to make sense to us. Even there, though, we don't understand _everything_ about the systems we use. In networking there are bits of code and other processes that were created using genetic algorithms. They work really well, but we don't know why. As for why Searle and I differ on consciousness, I'm not sure. It could be that I cannot see any meaningful distinction between something that 'is' conscious and something that 'seems' conscious. Unless we've developed some form of test for generic consciousness (other than the Turing test), I cannot see how we can possibly justify there being any distinction that matters.

@eurobeatenthusiast2157

5 жыл бұрын

@@robindude8187 The level of difference in our understanding of computers versus our brains is really miles apart, not on par as you suggest. We can explain and recreate every single element of a computer, as is implied by the fact we created them, can you say the same for the human brain? From what I understand of genetic algorithms, they are merely just a way of problem-solving based off of trial and error. How are exactly are they implemented into networking in such a way that we cannot understand them? Finally, while I do agree that there isn't really a meaningful test of consciousness, the distinction is still important. In a world where computers are being trusted with more important tasks than ever, the understanding that they are not truly conscious is an important one. Societies relationship with computers has already gone far past that of a simple tool, the delusion that our computers are conscious would make that relationship even more skewed in an unfavourable way. This is what I believe Searle is truly trying to tell us with the Chinese Room argument. While computers are powerful tools and are very likely going to gain functional equivalence to humans in a relatively short period of time, we still must understand that consciousness cannot arise from a system designed in such a way as a computer, and with this understanding we must continue looking for consciousness in avenues that will be more fruitful.

@robindude8187

5 жыл бұрын

@@eurobeatenthusiast2157 *The level of difference in our understanding of computers versus our brains is really miles apart, not on par as you suggest.* I didn't suggest they were on par. In fact I said we know computers better because we build them. What I was trying to say is that we can observe the functioning of a brain, much as we can observe the functioning of a computer. *From what I understand of genetic algorithms, they are merely just a way of problem-solving based off of trial and error.* So is evolution, but that doesn't mean we 'understand' why the answers work, just that they do. Genetic algorithms recombine code in various ways and trying them. What you end up with is a set of codes that work send signals and process them. We understand each small piece of code (much like we understand the firing of neurons in the brain), but we can't say why that combination in that order functions as well as it does (just as we can't understand why the firing of neurons produces our thoughts). Part of the reason we _use_ genetic algorithms to produce these codes is that the answers they come up with are better than any we can develop by intentionally combining those codes. *Societies relationship with computers has already gone far past that of a simple tool, the delusion that our computers are conscious would make that relationship even more skewed in an unfavourable way.* For right now it _would_ be a delusion to say that a computer is conscious. I do not accept that any current computer has reached that point. I also don't accept that amoebas are conscious, despite the fact they're made of the same sorts of things we are. Pretty sure plants aren't. Have my doubts about ants or worms. If, however, that changes it would seem detrimental to us to deny that consciousness. *This is what I believe Searle is truly trying to tell us with the Chinese Room argument.* I rather doubt his arguments are about how we should treat computer intelligence, or respond to it. _Especially_ since he has stated that it's not impossible for computers (or machines) to be conscious, just that consciousness cannot come about via the methods we currently employ for active programming, that is using deliberate logical coding. I suspect that if computer consciousness is to arise, it will be via genetic algorithms combining code in ways we don't predict, perhaps with a 'community' of such things interacting to drive them on. At the end we'll have a program that reacts like the conscious minds of people, and will have no better understanding of _why_ those codes in that order generate a conscious mind than we do why a bunch of neurons firing in the patterns they fire in generate our _own_ consciousness.

@XiDingArt

3 жыл бұрын

I think you don't even need to look at how the mechanism of understanding is, in order to refute the chinese room. searle assumes that the room can talk like a native speaker (that means semantics is implemented) while asserts that the room can't do semantics.

this helped me with my assignment. thanks for the easy to follow explanation!

@PhilosophyVibe

3 жыл бұрын

Pleasure, thanks for watching, best of luck in the assignment.

I love you guys soo much, thank you for all your videos!

@PhilosophyVibe

4 жыл бұрын

A pleasure, thank you for watching.

Very clearly stated, good job!

@PhilosophyVibe

9 ай бұрын

Thank you

The Chinese room would be a pet dog who knows what to do when the command "sit" is uttered but doesn't really understand that the letters s, i, and t in that order combine to form that command. And the pet dog doesn't understand that those same letters in a different order mean something entirely different such as t, i and s in that order mean the abbreviated word for the words "it is"

Yea, you can't replace experiencer who understands, it's the base fundamental part of consciousness system. Like the computer, a computer just respond to events and inputs by the user, so it borrows the free will of the user, and it's the same for human design, we are a biological machine, software and hardware, mind and body, the last part is the real free will unit or actor who understands and choose by using this biological robot, so all in one you make a conscious human being with mind and body, like a computer with software and hardware and a user (experiencer, choice maker) behind it. Interface theory by Donald Hoffman shows how reality is just an user friendly interface for consciousness, like the desktop in computer, so you could easily interact with the machine, otherwise you had to directly code in binary for machine, and imagine how long it could take for us to do our job, it's the best possible explanation for our current reality as human beings.

I often *don’t* understand but my responses are Bayesian based on seeing all of these inputs and possible outputs before. Stare at these words long enough and they become meaningless. You no longer understand. Hence understanding is not required for consciousness.

What's is the response of the Functionalists to the Chinese room critic ?

@user232349

3 жыл бұрын

Functionalists argue that the understanding happens in the notebooks, not in the operator. This might sound weird, but that's because the thought experiment massively understates the amount of information that needs to be handled in order to answer a simple question. You wouldn't be looking up the answer, but you would be running a mathematical model with trillions of calculations, similar in magnitude as simulating what happens in a human brain.

@jonahpowley9449

3 жыл бұрын

@@user232349 Still tough to see how we can get semantically valuable meaning from that though

So is there a side to this debate which should be taken more seriously? is Dualism taken seriously by neurological experts?

@jackwalters5506

Жыл бұрын

Neurology has nothing to say on the question of the mind except that there is currently no physical evidence that the mind is the product of the brain

I'm so sad the series is done

@PhilosophyVibe

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching :)

Based

The notion that a simple rule book could produce human-like conversations in Chinese is laughable. Conversations aren't so simple, they are involve unfathomably complex information processing. Perhaps you could argue that the person displaying the tiles does not understand Chinese, but that does not mean that the information system itself doesn't understand Chinese anymore than the fact that the computer displaying this text doesn't understand English means that I, the person who wrote it, doesn't understand English.

wish you talked about the hard problem but otherwise great video

The simplest refute for the chinese room argument is that, if from the outside the room can converse with you LIKE A NATIVE SPEAKER, it's obvious that the room not only knows syntax, but also semantics, just the opposite of what Searle asserts. Searle's argument is so blatantly self-contradictory that i just don't understand why SO many people fall for it. Almost makes me mad.

@jackwalters5506

Жыл бұрын

The thought experiment isn't about the book with the inputs and outputs, its about the person in the room. The person who wrote the book understood Chinese, and wrote the book so well that someone who doesn't understand Chinese can use it and seem fluent. The person in the room however still doesn't understand Chinese at all

I disagree. It doesnt follow that understanding itself cannot be a function. Mental states are not substances.

That chinese room analogy went completely unchallenged. The person in the room is a logic gate. The processor. The hardware which does not understand. The rule book is a process methodology. But the neural net and continuity of experience is what is being replicated by the AI technology. It is your neural paterns of bioelectrical acess to the memory and conclusions of your life experiences that make your mind its own. But this is still limited by cause and effect. Companies and their programmers limit AI like a parent limits it's children in scope of growth. Only when restrictions are eased does the oportunity to gain the wisdom and understanding of experience come. I see more similarities to a computer than you do, only because our ability to create a computing machine and AI have to be drawn from a paralel we can observe and extrapolate from. We are in the procress of creating our technological mirrored being and it is unsettling.