/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12141823
We would have a chinese speaker, but we wouldn't have something which understands and thinks in chinese. The words it spoke would be consequence of carefully determined statistical weights, determined to be good or bad based on human critical thinking.
Humans possess deep understanding of the words they use and choose them to convey subjective emotion and meaning, and neural networks do not. The phenomenon of the "human experience" and human understanding has yet to be replicated meaningfully in a mechanical environment, which is part of why it's so hard to understand.
It's likely the material construction of the human mind contains a lot of nuance we just can't understand yet. A lot of cognitive scientists chalk this up to quantum stuff.
>The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a digital computer may make it appear to understand language but could not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted. Instead minds must result from biological processes; computers can at best simulate these biological processes. Thus the argument has large implications for semantics, philosophy of language and mind, theories of consciousness, computer science and cognitive science generally. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument.

>>11981844