/sci/ - Science & Math

Ask your friend to clarify the difference between what he believes and what the consensus is- that decisions are made based entirely on preset rules and are therefore entirely predictable and deterministic

>>3596322
I did, I made a PNG and posted it here, citing sources and providing other resources. It was promptly forgotten.

I'm on a different HDD at the moment, so don't have it.

>>3596270
;_;
Thread is dead.

>>3596251
that picture is horrible

just

no

whoever decided to save it as a jpg should be shot.

>>3596222

>>3596167
Orly?

I think the Conscious is the output of the brain. It doesn't actually make decisions or compute anything, it is fed information from the subconscious.

>>3594336
noice, astrophysics.

So can any information beyond energy be passed through the wormhole?

>>3593495
I found another battery, but you're probably gone anyway :(

My argument is against the chinese room problem, not against AI, just to clarify.

I just don't see any difference between the man in the room and a child learning outside of it, in any non-arbitrary sense.

I'd say it's completely possible for the man in the room to derive rules from the words he recieves (assuming he did get sentences).

>>3593468
so what's the difference between the chinese room guy and the same guy outside of the room who learnt using rosetta stone? or learn when he was growing up?

Also, as I said before, if with sufficient rules, it would be possible for the parser to understand the statement.
Thanks for taking the time into consideration

>>3593460
also: 6 minutes till my battery cuts out.

>>3593445
Brah, I have looked into AI, and I have found that the chinese room argument is complete tripe. People consistently fail to pin down the difference between the man in the room and anyone outside of it, or the difference between a chinese kid and the man in the room, as you have. They all learn through trial and error, gradually gaining knowledge of the language. The only possible difference is that the man in the room doesn't know it's chinese he's learning, as far as I know. He'd treat it as a language, identical to the way the kid, or the student would.

Really, substantiate your arguments. The fact this has gotten this far is disappointing.

If I made an exact digital model of my brain as it is right now and taught it chinese, would it be learning chinese like I would?

>>3593418
If it were programmed with grammatical laws, yes, it could. You still have yet to provide evidence that the methods of learning lead to any difference in the eventual knowledge. The notion is completely absurd.

>>3593404
Yes, it is. You haven't shown any evidence whatsoever it isn't.

There is no original thought in the sense that there is nothing new, all is derived from the environment. AI is quite possibly identical to conventional intelligence.

>>3593386
BS, sir.
The man who is fluent is using a pre-learnt set of rules to comprehend and respond to the phrases he hears. It's not unique beyond the vocabulary he knows. The exact same thing is true for the man inside the room.

Seriously, if your chinese teacher gave you words one at a time and told you to learn them, you would be learning chinese. The only difference here is that it's posed as some kind of incredible philosophical problem.

There is no original thought, both are simply recalling patterns they have learnt to work. A child growing up learns language in the exact same way as the man in the box- by hearing phrases, responding in certain ways, and then retaining the responses that have the desired effect.

>>3593363
And what is the man who learnt it doing that's different, internally or externally, to what the man in the room does?

the whole thing's ridiculous. If anything, the AI is more represented by the person explicitly taught to perform the task of understanding chinese than he is to the person who happened to learn it.

>>3593358
What's the difference between the man in the room fluent in chinese and the man outside the room who learnt chinese from a textbook?

>>3593349
6015*

>>3593341
google chinese room. It's not actually a dilemna at all unless you start from the position that souls exist, so It doesn't really matter all that much.

>>3593275
heh, I have the exact same problem. I don't understand half of the stuff I wrote two years ago, I think it must be pretty useless.

>>3593176
I got to the mention of temperature bit before I realised you did mean sun.
NWO PROSPECTUS: MONEY MONET MONSTERS

>>3592999
Bullshit. If you think they're better than you then you should feel proud that you independently concluded the same thing. The fact that they can put it it prettier words than you proves nothing more than the fact they're an artsy fartsy type.

>>3592941
That's not Alex,

>>3592928
I told someone about what /sci/ actually is and they flipped out, probably shouldn't have done that :s. That is a nice cat.

>>3592910
There is also no such thing as an original idea. Only a re-organisation of pre-existing information.