I don't think this is the right approach. There is nothing special going on with observer dependence. Yes, a bit, or an assembly instruction, has no meaning in itself. But neither does a neuron. All take their meaning from the assembly of which they are a part (rather than an outside observer). In hardware, the meaning of a binary signal is determined by the hardware which processes that signal. In software, the meaning of an instruction from the other instructions in a program, which all together process information. And in a brain, the meaning of a neuron derives from the neurons it signals, and the neurons which signal it, which in totality also process information. — hypericin
there are only one set of rules for understanding Chinese, and both humans and computers would use the same rules for understanding Chinese. I don't see a difference between how computers work and how humans work. — Harry Hindu
Edit: I think I've got it, it's the cut between the observer and the observed?? — Daemon
Of course life and minds follow rules. You are following the rules of the English language that you learned in grade school when you type your posts. Ever heard of the genetic code? Why do you keep saying stuff that only takes a simple observation to see that it isn't true?But life and mind don’t “follow rules”. They are not dumb machine processes. They are not algorithmic. Symbols constrain physics. So as a form of “processing”, it is utterly different. — apokrisis
No. To understand language is to possess a set of rules in memory for interpreting particular scribbles and sounds. Like I said, understanding is the possession of a set of rules in memory for interpreting any sensory data. The man in the room has a different set of rules for interpreting the scribbles on the paper than the rules that Chinese people have for interpreting those same symbols. Hence, the instructions in the room are not for understanding Chinese because they are not the same set of rules that Chinese speakers learned or use. The room understands something. It understands, "write this symbol when you see this symbol." The room also understands the language the instructions are written in. How can that be if the room, or the man, doesn't understand language?To understand language is to know how to act. That knowing involves constraining the uncertainty and instability of the physical realm to the point that the desired outcome is statistically sure to happen. — apokrisis
It seems like that is your problem to solve. You are the dualist, so you are the one that sees this as a hybrid device. As a monist, I don't see it as such. What is it about carbon that is so special in being the only element capable of producing a hybrid device in the sense that you are claiming here? Why do you think that natural selection is often confused as a smart process (intelligent design), rather than a dumb (blind) process?So you can’t just hand wave about reconnecting the computer to the physics. You have to show where this now hybrid device is actually doing what biology does rather than still merely simulating the physics required. — apokrisis
Of course life and minds follow rules. You are following the rules of the English language — Harry Hindu
The man in the room has a different set of rules for interpreting the scribbles on the paper than the rules that Chinese people have for interpreting those same symbols. Hence, the instructions in the room are not for understanding Chinese because they are not the same set of rules that Chinese speakers learned or use. The room understands something. It understands, "write this symbol when you see this symbol." The room also understands the language the instructions are written in. How can that be if the room, or the man, doesn't understand language? — Harry Hindu
My translation customers often want to make the reader feel good about something, typically to feel good about their products. — Daemon
Neural network architectures, or even the analog computers that came before digital computers, are more embracing of actual physics. — apokrisis
The problem was that it makes that criticism very plainly, but doesn't then supply the argument for life's irreducible complexity that makes the counter-position of biology so compelling. — apokrisis
Is that right? I thought a neural network was just a program running on a digital computer. And no analog computer has any connection with the physics of consciousness either. — Daemon
Searle frequently talks about the biological nature of consciousness, he refers to his position as "biological naturalism". It's not unreasonable for him to leave the biology to the biologists. — Daemon
I'm puzzled as that would be exactly my point. Neurons and synapses can't be understood except as prime examples of the irreducible complexity of semiosis. — apokrisis
I don't see a world of difference between them. Algorithms are a type of constraint.There is a world of difference between rules as algorithms and rules as constraints. — apokrisis
The instructions in the room are written in a language - a different language than Chinese. How did the man in the room come to understand the language the instructions are written in? I've asked this a couple of times now, but you and Apo just ignore this simple, yet crucial, fact.You"re right that the rules in the room are not those that Chinese speakers use. But that's the point: a computer can't understand language in the way we can. The reason is that we learn meaning through conscious experience. — Daemon
If you are the translator then why do you need a translation tool? Where do the translations reside - in your brain or in you tool? If you need to look them up in a tool, then the understanding of that particular translation is in the tool, not in your brain.I'm a translator, I use a computer translation tool — Daemon
These are all unfounded assertions without anything to back it up. What are conscious experiences? What do you mean by, understand?You're right that the rules in the room are not those that Chinese speakers use. But that's the point: a computer can't understand language in the way we can. The reason is that we learn meaning through conscious experience. — Daemon
If you are the translator then why do you need a translation tool? Where do the translations reside - in your brain or in you tool? If you need to look them up in a tool, then the understanding of that particular translation is in the tool, not in your brain. — Harry Hindu
These are all unfounded assertions without anything to back it up. What are conscious experiences? What do you mean by, understand? — Harry Hindu
Instead, the brain is handling particular kinds of "experiential information" - visual, tactile, auditory, kinesthetic, gustatory, etc.
But that then becomes a dualistic framing of the situation because he is talking about qualia and all the metaphysical problems that must ensue from there. — apokrisis
Isn't that how you learned the translation of a word and then use the translation? Didn't you have to learn (be programmed) with that information via your sensory inputs to then supply that information when prompted? How is the translation tool's understanding different than a brain's understanding?I don't need the translation tool Harry, I can do the translation on my own, the tool just saves me typing. When I come across a word that isn't in my Translation Memory I add it to the memory, together with the translation. Then the next time that word crops up I just push a button and the translation is inserted. The translation tool doesn't understand anything. — Daemon
You used the phrase. I thought you knew what you were talking about. I would define it as a kind of working memory that processes sensory information.A dictionary definition of "understand" is "perceive the intended meaning of". Another dictionary says "to grasp the meaning of".
What do you think conscious experiences are? — Daemon
How is the translation tool's understanding different than a brain's understanding? — Harry Hindu
I was just citing Searle's examples. — apokrisis
So understanding has to do with perceiving meaning? What do you mean by, "perceive"? Is the computer not perceiving certain inputs from your mouse and keyboard? Does it not perceive the meaning of your keystrokes and mouse clicks and make the correct characters appear on the screen and windows open for you to look at?It doesn't have any understanding. It doesn't perceive the intended meaning, it doesn't perceive anything. It isn't equipped to perceive anything. — Daemon
But the semantics weren't ascribed by you. They were ascribed by your teacher(s) who taught you how to translate words. You weren't born knowing any language, much less how to translate them. You had to be taught that. You also weren't the one that created languages, to define what scribble and sound refers to what event or thing. You had to be taught that. You used your eyes and ears (your inputs) and your brain (your processor) to learn, to discern the patterns, so that you may survive in this social environment (produce the appropriate outputs as expected by your peers).Semantics, meaning, is not intrinsic to the physics of my PC. The semantics is ascribed, in this case by me, when I tell it how to translate words and phrases. — Daemon
That's because the only thing it knows is to spit out this scribble when it perceives a certain mouse click or key stroke. It has the same instructions as the man in the room - write this scribble when you perceive this scribble. It doesn't have instructions that actually provide the translation, of this word = that word, and then what that word points to outside of the room, which is how you understand it, because that is how you learned it.The translation tool often produces quite spooky results, it certainly looks like it understands to a naive observer, but it's easy to see that it doesn't understand when you allow it to translate on its own without my intervention (which I never do in practice). — Daemon
Because it doesn't have the same set of instructions, nor the need to learn them, that you did when you learned them, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't if it had the need and the correct set of instructions.One of the author's conclusions is that "linguistic meaning is derived from the role things and people play in everyday life". I said something about this above, using the word "good" and the translation of machine assembly instructions as examples.
If the translation tool's understanding was the same as mine, as you seem to want to believe, then machine translation would be as good as human translation. But it isn't! — Daemon
If the semiotic relation between symbols and physics is formally irreducible - at the level of mathematical proof, as has been argued by CS Peirce, Robert Rosen, Howard Pattee, etc - then that trumps the more limited claim of TMs as "universal computers". — apokrisis
A dictionary definition of "understand" is "perceive the intended meaning of". Another dictionary says "to grasp the meaning of". — Daemon
So understanding has to do with perceiving meaning? What do you mean by, "perceive"? Is the computer not perceiving certain inputs from your mouse and keyboard? Does it not perceive the meaning of your keystrokes and mouse clicks and make the correct characters appear on the screen and windows open for you to look at? — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.