FlowVoid @ FlowVoid @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

466

Joined

2 yr. ago

All he has shown that the human+room-system is something different than just the human by itself.

It's more than that. He says that all Turing machines are fundamentally the same as the Chinese room, and therefore no Turing machine will ever be capable of "human understanding".

Alternately, if anyone ever builds a machine that can achieve "human understanding", it will not be a Turing machine.

The human intuitive understanding works at a completely different level than the manual execution of mechanical rules.

This is exactly Searle's point. Whatever the room is doing, it is not the same as what humans do.

If you accept that, then the rest is semantics. You can call what the room does "intelligent" or "understanding" if you want, but it is fundamentally different from "human intelligence" or "human understanding".

"The room understands" is a common counterargument, and it was addressed by Searle by proposing that a person memorize the contents of the book.

And the room passes the Turing test, that does not mean that "it passes all the tests we can throw at it". Here is one test that it would fail: it contains various components that respond to the word "red", but it does not contain any components that exclusively respond to any use of the word "red". This level of abstraction is part of what we mean by understanding. Internal representation matters.

For one thing, understanding implies that a word is linked to a mental concept. So if you say "The car is red", you first need to mentally compare the mental concept of "red" to the car in question.

The Chinese room bypasses all of that, it can say "The car is red" without ever having seen a red object at all.

A covered pot.

The whole point of the Chinese room is that it doesn't need anything "dedicated to creating the experience of consciousness". It can pass the Turing test perfectly well without such a component. Therefore passing the Turing test - or any similar test based solely on algorithmic output - is not the same as possessing consciousness.

Congress can write laws that the SCOTUS is not allowed to review. They've actually done this in the past

Good behavior is generally used to justify lifetime tenure as a judge, unless impeached.

However, the Constitution does not guarantee lifetime tenure on the SCOTUS itself. Nothing prevents Congress from requiring a Justice to transfer to a lower court after, say, 18 years on the SCOTUS.

The charging port is now an open standard, and pretty much every EV in North America will be using it in a few years.

Tesla stock is worth more now than when Twitter went private.

And if Musk intended to kill Twitter, he would have simply shut down the servers last year.

What you are seeing is the result of mistakes, not a conspiracy.

English words are neither logical nor illogical. The English language, more than most, depends heavily on context to confer meaning. Some English words can mean their own opposite, like "to dust", "to sanction", or "to cleave".

Linguistics aside, even if your country is landlocked you will most likely find a variety of fish in your grocery store, including those from the sea. In fact, the fish in your grocery store most likely traveled less far than many of the fruits and vegetables.

There are more native English speakers in my country than yours. So I'll continue to use the definition that they understand, which is also the definition used by Encyclopedia Britannica.

But if I ever visit your landlocked English-speaking country (assuming such a place exists), then I'll try to keep in mind that local customs differ when eating at your restaurants.

A pissed off judge can do more than just send someone to jail. They can claw back any illegitimate transfers and give them to someone else, like pissed off creditors. That's what would happen to any Twitter assets in the event of bankruptcy, even if they technically no longer belonged to Twitter.

Bankruptcy isn't just something you declare, like in an episode of The Office. It means opening up all your books to the courts and to your creditors. It's like an IRS audit, except instead of a bored IRS agent you will face multiple openly hostile lawyers.

And if Elon actually didn't care about losing $20 billion, then why go through the trouble of all these dangerous shenanigans? All the "Elon is masterminding the death of Twitter" simultaneously assume that he doesn't care about losing his investment and he is desperately trying to cash in assets that belongs to other investors.

First of all, what assets?

Second of all, "disappearing" your assets like that will only piss off a judge and possibly land you in jail. Ask any divorce lawyer.

Third, Elon personally paid for half of Twitter. If Twitter goes away, his $20 billion goes away with it.

So you're saying those uppity folk need to know their place.

Seafood commonly includes freshwater species such as catfish, trout, and some salmon.

Does your country have rivers or lakes? Seafood isn't always found in a sea.

I think you missed the point.

Our atmosphere is 21% O2, and less than 0.05% CO2.

If that changed by 1% to 20% O2 and 1.05% CO2, we would all die. But not for asphyxiation or lack of O2, because the slight reduction in O2 would be unnoticeable. The drastic increase in CO2, on the other hand, would be catastrophic.

The only realistic way to "lose" O2 is to convert it into CO2. And even if enough CO2 were produced to extinguish humanity forever, there would still be plenty of O2 left over. So "running out" of O2 is not a serious concern.

Not all types of fish are overfished, some (like haddock) are sustainable. Just as some crops are farmed responsibly, and others (like California almonds) are not.