4 ms·
This story was used by Stephen Pinker in "How the Mind Works" as part of an attempt to reject the validity of Searle's Chinese Room argument against Strong AI.
by deanjones 12y ago
This story was used by Stephen Pinker in "How the Mind Works" as part of an attempt to reject the validity of Searle's Chinese Room argument against Strong AI. IIRC Pinker's point was that Searle's argument rests on a narrow definition of what it means to "understand", and he used this story to illustrate his argument that a broader view of concepts like "understanding" is required.
Personally, I wasn't convinced but I liked the approach.
- jimmaswell 12y agoIt should be obvious to anybody who knows a little about physics and programming that it's technically possible to have an accurate-enough physics simulation of the matter and energy in a brain, even if it would require more resources than are available, and therefore strong AI is theoretically possible, right? Unless someone believes a human brain requires some supernatural component that operates outsode of the known laws of physics, in which case there's no point discussing the matter with them. Otherwise I don't see how that argument could be legitimately refuted.