 | | Re: Design
|
|
(...) That cannot happen - in the thought experiment, the Chinese rule book is unaware that the person running the rules speaks only english. Searle's own counter to the argument that the man+the rulebook is an intelligent system is that the man (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Design
|
|
--- steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote: ... (...) Except for the fact that the Chinese guy could only understand one word every million years or so. What Serle (annoyingly, yes!) fails to comprehend is that a human being who miraculously had the (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Design
|
|
Dan, I wouldn't have argued it quite that way, but then I wouldn't have been so eloquent. On the human mind and simulation (mimicry) of it, I have three observations: Intelligent behavior has a goal (easy to mimic) Intelligence has an agenda (not (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Design
|
|
(...) I don't see any problem with programming an agenda, or an attention span. Are you saying these are intrinsically hard things to do with a computer? ... Yes, I'm saying that (...) I'll go with that. A dog in a human family grows up with dog (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Design
|
|
(...) The Turing test only says that a system that can pass the test should be considered intelligent - not that a system that cannot pass the test is not intelligent. This is an important criticism of the test. There are a lot of very clever AI (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Design
|
|
Steve, I agree, the Turing test is not up to date, and even in its time did not indicate intelligence accurately, though I would go so far as to say that those intelligent programs that might pass the Turing test won't pass the test of demonstrating (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Design
|
|
Do you care to put forth an alternate definition of intelligence? What Turing did, IMSHO, is simply make the point concrete that intelligence is what intelligence does. Navel-gazing focus on the 'qualia' of the 'personal experience' of intelligence (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: Design
|
|
Hi All, I've tried everything to unsubscribe from this email service to no avail. Any suggestions? Jeff -----Original Message----- From: dan miller [mailto:danbmil99@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2005 6:38 PM To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Unsubscribing (ws Re: Design
|
|
(...) Suggestion: Determine where your subscription is coming from. It could be coming from two places, since the list is gatewayed for obscure historical reasons. From the header page, (URL) : Note: The lugnet.robotics newsgroup and the (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
