Xref: utzoo sci.philosophy.tech:3741 comp.ai.philosophy:356
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!njin!uupsi!sunic!dkuug!daimi!jufier
From: jufier@daimi.aau.dk (Svend Jules Fjerdingstad)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, Strong AI, and Chinese Rooms
Message-ID: <1990Nov16.161134.2845@daimi.aau.dk>
Date: 16 Nov 90 16:11:34 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.122329.15235@daimi.aau.dk> <2460@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Sender: jufier@daimi.aau.dk (Svend Jules Fjerdingstad)
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Lines: 77

deichman@cod.NOSC.MIL (Shane D. Deichman) writes:

>In his earlier posting, Svend makes some brilliant arguments in
>support of a deterministic, non-free will environment for human
>existence.  By deftly casting the arguments of both Searle and
>the Churchlands aside, he resorts to a "If it exhibits the qualities
>of intelligence then it IS intelligent" argument.  Is that to say
>that human perceptions are always infallible, and that what we
>see and perceive actually IS?  Or does it imply that our percep-
>tions, while not always accurate, still elicit a deeper understanding
>of a given phenomenon based on multiple repetitions?

No.

The point is this: If a human being "exhibits the qualities of intelligence"
(according to our (subjective) perception of such qualities), then we DO
(in normal every-day life) consider this human being to be intelligent.

Therefore if some entity (be it a computer system or anything else) behaves
"intelligently", then we MUST also conclude, that this entity has intelligence.

If we cannot consider a computer system intelligent EVEN THOUGH it behaves
intelligently, then we have redefined the concept of intelligence in such a
way as to make it completely unrelated to any behaviour, that we can observe.
This means that any piece of dirt might indeed be considered intelligent, or
alternatively, that it is impossible to conclude about any human being, that
he or she is intelligent. This definition could, in fact, lead to a belief in
the non-existence of true intelligence, whether in humans or in computers.
(Except in me, of course :-))

In my opinion, this last definition of intelligence is absurd an useless.
Intelligence is the ability to BEHAVE intelligently. Nice definition, eh :-)

The problem is that we cannot at the present time (and perhaps we never will
be able to) give a precise and exhaustive definition of intelligent behaviour.
Therefore the Turing test represents the brilliant solution of using one
intelligent system, human beings, to evaluate the possible degree of (verbal)
intelligence residing in some other supposedly intelligent system, a computer
system, for example.

>The Chinese Room argument points out some deficiencies in the Turing
>Test -- deficiencies which call upon the observer to take a deeper,
>more profound look at what is meant by "understanding" and "knowledge."
>Svend disregards the subconsciousness associated with cognition and
>lucidity, and therefore begs the question.

If subconsciousness is a prerequisite for intelligence, if it plays a role
in forming intelligent behaviour, then of course a computer system would have
to possess subconsciousness, in order to pass the Turing test.

Anyway, IMHO the only deficiencies pointed out by The Chinese Room argument are
deficiencies in Searle's understanding of the Turing test :-)

If Searle's Chinese Room argument were valid, then all of you people out there
on the net might just be mindless machines looking up words in a dictionary.
But then, why do I bother writing this? Better stop now :-)

>Furthermore, he attacks the Churchlands (supposed "allies" in his 
>campaign in support of Strong AI) in their reasoning capacities
>for failing to see this point he so astutely raises.  Perhaps, in
>a stolid, deterministic world where emotions are bleak representa-
>tions of mere "sensory inputs," Svend's arguments would carry some
>weight.  But in a world enriched by the subtleties of life, his
>"intelligence" as a function of outward appearance is exceedingly
>bland.

Ah, I thought so. You ARE one of those :-)

>-shane
>"the Ayatollah of Rock-and-Rollah"

Svend
--

Svend Jules Fjerdingstad, jufier@daimi.aau.dk       |  "To love,
Computer Science Department, University of Aarhus   |     and to learn."
Ny Munkegade 116, DK-8000 Aarhus C, DENMARK         |