Even if Mulkiatsch hasn't got a PhD in philosophy or whatever, he has a point, and your response isn't very satisfying. If you are willing to take the Turing test as a criterium to distinguish intelligent behaviour from non-intelligent, then the issue of simulation is simply irrelevant. Intelligence is a characteristic of certain behaviour (or efficient I/O as someone else stated it), and not the cause of it. The cause is a complex of mechanical neurological processes, each "dumb" in itself. When it comes to behaviour, the identity you are denying ("simulations aren't the phenomena they simulate", which IMHO is just a bunch of words) is definitely correct. I mean, what could be the possible meaning of a claim like "He behaves intelligent in all possible respect, but he is not, he is pretending"? How on earth can a claim like that be corroborated? And what is it then, to be "genuinely" intelligent? It reminds me of Homer: "It looks like ketchup, it smells like ketchup, it tastes like ketchup, but brother, it ain't ketchup." So what is it then? It could be something synthetic, but for Homer, being a brainless stomach with a oesophagus on it, that should be irrelevant. As for intelligence, the physical substratum (neurons or silicons) in which it arises, should be.
In this perspective: The Chinese room. Does the guy in it speak Chinese? No. Does the room? Off course it does. The combination of the syntactical operations by the guy on the Chinese dictionary, results in a Chinese speaking room. If you tear the room down and break it up in parts, it stops speaking Chinese, but I suppose the same will happen it you start slicing up the brain of a Chinese.
Shortly, please explain to me the meaning of "genuine intelligence".
Slashdot Mirror
Even if Mulkiatsch hasn't got a PhD in philosophy or whatever, he has a point, and your response isn't very satisfying.
If you are willing to take the Turing test as a criterium to distinguish intelligent behaviour from non-intelligent, then the issue of simulation is simply irrelevant. Intelligence is a characteristic of certain behaviour (or efficient I/O as someone else stated it), and not the cause of it. The cause is a complex of mechanical neurological processes, each "dumb" in itself. When it comes to behaviour, the identity you are denying ("simulations aren't the phenomena they simulate", which IMHO is just a bunch of words) is definitely correct. I mean, what could be the possible meaning of a claim like "He behaves intelligent in all possible respect, but he is not, he is pretending"? How on earth can a claim like that be corroborated? And what is it then, to be "genuinely" intelligent? It reminds me of Homer: "It looks like ketchup, it smells like ketchup, it tastes like ketchup, but brother, it ain't ketchup." So what is it then? It could be something synthetic, but for Homer, being a brainless stomach with a oesophagus on it, that should be irrelevant. As for intelligence, the physical substratum (neurons or silicons) in which it arises, should be.
In this perspective: The Chinese room. Does the guy in it speak Chinese? No. Does the room? Off course it does. The combination of the syntactical operations by the guy on the Chinese dictionary, results in a Chinese speaking room. If you tear the room down and break it up in parts, it stops speaking Chinese, but I suppose the same will happen it you start slicing up the brain of a Chinese.
Shortly, please explain to me the meaning of "genuine intelligence".