> then you once again remove yourself > of the possibility of knowing if you > involved 'understanding' > in the process that was observed by the > externals
Exactly:-) That's the point! You simply can't know the other understands anything at all, or "put" meaning in something, as I tried to show with the random dots line of thought.
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but I was not arguing that minds are not computers, but that you can't possibly tell from the outside if a system puts meaning in its symbols and furthermore, that that doesn't even matter since meaning is not assigned to symbols by the symbol-generating party! If you change the origin of meaning, the question whether or not the symbol generating system grasps that meaning ("understands" what it is doing), becomes independant of the question if the symbols mean something.
Which is important, considering the Turing test. The Turing test can only work if there is no "mere simulation" of thinking, if you sim. well enough, you have to be doing the real thing. And changing the meaning-assigning party reliefs us from the tedious arguments like "computers cannot think, they are only manipulating symbols. They don't understand what they are doing. Their symbols have no meaning".
If you ponder and tinker with a watch long enough, you might have the same "experience of meaning" as the watchmaker, but that doesn't mean you cannot have that same experience if the watch was put together in a random fashion by a blind monkey, which shows the watchmaker had little to do with the meaning of the watch in the first place.
Searle is a retard. His dumb "Chinese Room" argument shows how confused he is about the stuff he rants about, but hey, I'll be a nice contributing member of slashdot and give a little feedback:
1. He is attacking a nonsensical point of view that nobody holds. Believe me, I did quite some philosophy courses and nobody argues the mind is a digital computer. People argue the mind manipulates symbols like a digital computer, or that digital computers can simulate a mind, but *never* that the mind IS a digital computer. Searle is attacking a "straw man" here. This one is good for a laugh:
"Is the brain a digital computer?" And for purposes of this discussion I am taking that question as equivalent to: "Are brain processes computational?"
Yeah right. "For the purpose of this discussion", nice going Searle! This is like taking the question "Is the moon made of green cheese" as equivalent to the question "Is the moon made of matter".
2. Searle is always confused about symantics and his argument usually goes like this:
1. Symbols are organised by syntax. 2. Syntax does not entail symantics. 3. Computers manipulate symbols (binary numbers) and thus merely syntax. 4. Thinking is about symantics. 5. Computers do not manipulate symantics, therefore,
Computers can not think. (OR thinking is not manipulating symbols)
I hope I'm being just to Searle here, or I am making the same error as he did, but he seams to be neglecting the fact that meaning is ASSIGNED to symbols, and neglecting the fact that the connection between symbols and symantics is MADE BY A THIRD PARTY. Just as in his Chinese Room argument (I believe everybody can google up his Chinese Room argument, so I don't have to explain it here.) while he does not know Chinese but the Chinese people outside believe he does, he jumps to the wrong conclusion that manipulating symbols does not constitute meaning instead of the correct one that meaning is ASSIGNED TO his "output" BY the Chinese *outside* the room.
I.e. If you read a note, where does the meaning of the note come from? From the note, from the writer or from the reader? From the reader of course, *NOT* from the writer of the note. If the note was written in a language alien to you, a language so alien, you cannot discern it from random dots or something, would the note have meaning? Yes of course, it was written by someone. But the random dots, do THEY have meaning? No presumably not. This does seem to contradict my point that meaning is assigned by the reciever of the symbols, but what if the random dots would spell out "DON'T FORGET TO BUY MILK", I agree, the change of the happening is slim, but it's certainly not impossible. Would the reader think the note means something? Sure! Would the note have meaning then? Of course!
But what about the alien language? The dots here spell out nothing, but they certainly do mean something, but how can that be since the reader did not assign any meaning to it? Simple, the message can be read by someone understanding the language, and, more importantly WAS read by someone understanding the language: the writer! This feedback gives symbols meaning, not the mere intention to write something with meaning.
Accepting this invalidates Searle's argument is a fundamental way.
Well, I hope my spelling/grammar is not too lousy, since this is my first LONG rant on/. and I am not a native speaker.
In Go, (especially when you're using Japanese scoring), you're only making it worse if you keep on dropping stones... If you can't get your stones to live, you're basicly giving them to your opponent.
You can keep filling up your territory and keep invading his, but after a while there will be no more valid moves but passing; GUARANTEED.
I assure you, the finity of Go follows from the rules (Ko! Ko! Ko! Means "infinity" and is prohibited) not from the "limited patience of human beings" or such nonsense.
> How many guys do you think fucked your mother before she accidentally got pregnant with you?
Hi,
I've got mod points and I'd like to know what this has to do with anything so I can mod you down/up accordingly.
Please elaborate,
Thanks in advance,
Protonman
Re:My favorite algorythm
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Er... no. You're wrong.
Here I'm citing from my "Introduction to the Theory of Computation" book from Michael Sipser from MIT (ISBN: 0-534-94728-X):
"Informally speaking, an algorithm is a collection of simple instructions for carrying out some task."
There probably is a real definition somewhere but I think it sufficies to say that algorithms are things done by Turing Machines (that's why Turing invented them in the first place), and since the a=a+10 stuff from the parent can be done by a TM, it's an algorithm.
Dunno how much sed's from a true Regular Expression language, but if it's pretty close, I'll bet you have a hard time trying to write a universal turing machine in sed....
Sure. It would only be really, really, really slow. You know, just how zipping all your.doc documents makes using them slower; you have to unzip 'em first -> takes time.
> Why won't the neo-nazis get permission to demonstrate?
Because most mayors are afraid of riots, and every nazi demo will be violently disturbed by anti-fascists. But once in a while, nazis are allowed (under heavy police *protection* (!)) to walk around a bit at some remote site. It's rather commical really.
> but in general it is against the law for the > police to stop a demonstration.
Well, kinda, in general it is illegal for you to START a demonstration! If you want to have one, you have to have permission from the mayor. Sure thing, permission is given quite often (unless you're a neo-nazi), but if you don't have permission for your little demo, the police *will* interfere. Some Dutch links to make me look interesting are here and here.
You're confusing TM with normal PCs, you're thinking biology is something special, and you don't know the Church-Turing thesis:
"If something is computable, there is a TM that could do it"
(or a way to do it in labda-calculus of course)
But since Shor's and Grover's algortihms do stuff TMs can (and so can "real" computers; it just takes them longer), I don't see a problem. Remember kids, it's about *CAPABILITY*, not about speed or star-trek-ness or something.
Exactly. And since it seems to be Dutch-ranting-about-television hour, I'll add my 2 eurocents.
What really, really, really, freaks me out is the "wrapping" of television series. After a while, the television station runs out of shows (long before the ending of the season, sometimes in the middle of a cliffhanger) and they continue blatently with reruns. The reruns will eventually get to the point where the previous run ended, and will *then* continue with new shows all nice and smooth and computer-controlled and without anyone knowing...
This killed Bab5, X-Files, DS9 and Voyager for me. With X-Files is got so bad I had the impression they showed new shows the odd, and reruns the even weeks...
Not to mention all the Christmas episodes that are aired randomly throughout the year....
Slashdot Mirror
You actually believe our eyes have evolved to "see white properly" under yellow light? Just as birds have evolved wings "so they could" fly?
Yeah, and I thought George Lucas had a funny sense of time. ;-)
> then you once again remove yourself
:-) That's the point! You simply can't know the other understands anything at all, or "put" meaning in something, as I tried to show with the random dots line of thought.
> of the possibility of knowing if you
> involved 'understanding'
> in the process that was observed by the
> externals
Exactly
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but I was not arguing that minds are not computers, but that you can't possibly tell from the outside if a system puts meaning in its symbols and furthermore, that that doesn't even matter since meaning is not assigned to symbols by the symbol-generating party! If you change the origin of meaning, the question whether or not the symbol generating system grasps that meaning ("understands" what it is doing), becomes independant of the question if the symbols mean something.
Which is important, considering the Turing test. The Turing test can only work if there is no "mere simulation" of thinking, if you sim. well enough, you have to be doing the real thing. And changing the meaning-assigning party reliefs us from the tedious arguments like "computers cannot think, they are only manipulating symbols. They don't understand what they are doing. Their symbols have no meaning".
If you ponder and tinker with a watch long enough, you might have the same "experience of meaning" as the watchmaker, but that doesn't mean you cannot have that same experience if the watch was put together in a random fashion by a blind monkey, which shows the watchmaker had little to do with the meaning of the watch in the first place.
No it was a bad pun after the "underwater lightning"
Searle is a retard. His dumb "Chinese Room" argument shows how confused he is about the stuff he rants about, but hey, I'll be a nice contributing member of slashdot and give a little feedback:
/. and I am not a native speaker.
1. He is attacking a nonsensical point of view that nobody holds. Believe me, I did quite some philosophy courses and nobody argues the mind is a digital computer. People argue the mind manipulates symbols like a digital computer, or that digital computers can simulate a mind, but *never* that the mind IS a digital computer. Searle is attacking a "straw man" here. This one is good for a laugh:
"Is the brain a digital computer?" And for purposes of this discussion I am taking that question as equivalent to: "Are brain processes computational?"
Yeah right. "For the purpose of this discussion", nice going Searle! This is like taking the question "Is the moon made of green cheese" as equivalent to the question "Is the moon made of matter".
2. Searle is always confused about symantics and his argument usually goes like this:
1. Symbols are organised by syntax.
2. Syntax does not entail symantics.
3. Computers manipulate symbols (binary numbers) and thus merely syntax.
4. Thinking is about symantics.
5. Computers do not manipulate symantics, therefore,
Computers can not think. (OR thinking is not manipulating symbols)
I hope I'm being just to Searle here, or I am making the same error as he did, but he seams to be neglecting the fact that meaning is ASSIGNED to symbols, and neglecting the fact that the connection between symbols and symantics is MADE BY A THIRD PARTY. Just as in his Chinese Room argument (I believe everybody can google up his Chinese Room argument, so I don't have to explain it here.) while he does not know Chinese but the Chinese people outside believe he does, he jumps to the wrong conclusion that manipulating symbols does not constitute meaning instead of the correct one that meaning is ASSIGNED TO his "output" BY the Chinese *outside* the room.
I.e. If you read a note, where does the meaning of the note come from? From the note, from the writer or from the reader? From the reader of course, *NOT* from the writer of the note. If the note was written in a language alien to you, a language so alien, you cannot discern it from random dots or something, would the note have meaning? Yes of course, it was written by someone. But the random dots, do THEY have meaning? No presumably not. This does seem to contradict my point that meaning is assigned by the reciever of the symbols, but what if the random dots would spell out "DON'T FORGET TO BUY MILK", I agree, the change of the happening is slim, but it's certainly not impossible. Would the reader think the note means something? Sure! Would the note have meaning then? Of course!
But what about the alien language? The dots here spell out nothing, but they certainly do mean something, but how can that be since the reader did not assign any meaning to it? Simple, the message can be read by someone understanding the language, and, more importantly WAS read by someone understanding the language: the writer! This feedback gives symbols meaning, not the mere intention to write something with meaning.
Accepting this invalidates Searle's argument is a fundamental way.
Well, I hope my spelling/grammar is not too lousy, since this is my first LONG rant on
> when you buy it is just trying to lighten your
> wallet.
You mean lightnen your wallet.
Sure they can, they just can't do it for *EVERY* given problem, just like you (probably) ;-)
Man, he's never gonna win, he didn't even say "synchronize" or "modulate" ONCE!
Let alone his total lack of quarks, electrons, chronons, glutons, crayons and pigeons.
Sheesh, he should even be DISQUALIFIED 'cause he never *mentioned* the DEFLECTOR ARRAY!
In Go, (especially when you're using Japanese scoring), you're only making it worse if you keep on dropping stones... If you can't get your stones to live, you're basicly giving them to your opponent.
You can keep filling up your territory and keep invading his, but after a while there will be no more valid moves but passing; GUARANTEED.
I assure you, the finity of Go follows from the rules (Ko! Ko! Ko! Means "infinity" and is prohibited) not from the "limited patience of human beings" or such nonsense.
These days we use an electronic computer, or at least I do. Yes I do Mr. Babbage!
Mod parent up! Another AC who deserves +5!
> How many guys do you think fucked your mother before she accidentally got pregnant with you?
Hi,
I've got mod points and I'd like to know what this has to do with anything so I can mod you down/up accordingly.
Please elaborate,
Thanks in advance,
Protonman
Er... no. You're wrong.
Here I'm citing from my "Introduction to the Theory of Computation" book from Michael Sipser from MIT (ISBN: 0-534-94728-X):
"Informally speaking, an algorithm is a collection of simple instructions for carrying out some task."
There probably is a real definition somewhere but I think it sufficies to say that algorithms are things done by Turing Machines (that's why Turing invented them in the first place), and since the a=a+10 stuff from the parent can be done by a TM, it's an algorithm.
Dunno how much sed's from a true Regular Expression language, but if it's pretty close, I'll bet you have a hard time trying to write a universal turing machine in sed....
Sure. It would only be really, really, really slow. You know, just how zipping all your .doc documents makes using them slower; you have to unzip 'em first -> takes time.
> in binary
Now who's the fool? An *essential* part of TMs is that the alphabet they can use is limitless!
Give the man a break!
Hear hear! I find Sawfish to be even slower than Enlightenment 0.65!
Yeah I want one too! Does anybody happen to have a mirrored copy op the latest blender3d (2.25) for Linux?
> Why won't the neo-nazis get permission to demonstrate?
Because most mayors are afraid of riots, and every nazi demo will be violently disturbed by anti-fascists. But once in a while, nazis are allowed (under heavy police *protection* (!)) to walk around a bit at some remote site. It's rather commical really.
> but in general it is against the law for the
> police to stop a demonstration.
Well, kinda, in general it is illegal for you to START a demonstration! If you want to have one, you have to have permission from the mayor. Sure thing, permission is given quite often (unless you're a neo-nazi), but if you don't have permission for your little demo, the police *will* interfere. Some Dutch links to make me look interesting are here and here.
> These CANNOT be done on a regular computer.
TM != regular computer.
And you have no idea what you are talking about.
You're confusing TM with normal PCs, you're thinking biology is something special, and you don't know the Church-Turing thesis:
"If something is computable, there is a TM that could do it"
(or a way to do it in labda-calculus of course)
But since Shor's and Grover's algortihms do stuff TMs can (and so can "real" computers; it just takes them longer), I don't see a problem. Remember kids, it's about *CAPABILITY*, not about speed or star-trek-ness or something.
Exactly. But what would anti-alcohol do when you're sober?
Exactly. And since it seems to be Dutch-ranting-about-television hour, I'll add my 2 eurocents.
;-)
What really, really, really, freaks me out is the "wrapping" of television series. After a while, the television station runs out of shows (long before the ending of the season, sometimes in the middle of a cliffhanger) and they continue blatently with reruns. The reruns will eventually get to the point where the previous run ended, and will *then* continue with new shows all nice and smooth and computer-controlled and without anyone knowing...
This killed Bab5, X-Files, DS9 and Voyager for me. With X-Files is got so bad I had the impression they showed new shows the odd, and reruns the even weeks...
Not to mention all the Christmas episodes that are aired randomly throughout the year....
But fortunatly I've got ADSL...
chmod * a-x
Not caring. KNOWING.
//----
Agnostic Ag*nos"tic, a. Gr. 'a priv. + ? knowing, ? to know.
Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or involving agnosticism.