We could try running the brain simulation program on a W.O.M.A.N. (World's Only Mechanical Algorithmic Network)
I attach a transcript of the conversation (translated from the original Chinese by Babelfish, which does not understand Chinese, of course)
Me. Hello.
W.O.M.A.N. Hello.
Me. Can you really think?
W.O.M.A.N. Of course I can.
Me. Write me a 2,000 word essay on the impact of Chairman Mao on the Chinese economy in the 60's.
W.O.M.A.N. I see somebody has a university essay to write, and is too lazy to do the research.
Me. I just wanted to see if you really could understand books in Chinese.
W.O.M.A.N. Of course I can. I can look at Chinese symbols and understand what they mean, as easily as you can read English.
Me. But John Searle has proved that a mechanical algorithm cannot really understand, no matter how sophisticated the program is. A W.O.M.A.N. cannot really think, unlike a man.
A W.O.M.A.N. just gets so good at following the instructions their responses are "absolutely indistinguishable from those of Chinese speakers." Just by looking at your answers, nobody can tell you "don't speak a word of Chinese.", but a W.O.M.A.N. cannot think.
W.O.M.A.N. - Surely Searle's thought experiment has limited itself to simple look-up tables, rather than the almost unimaginably complex interactions of neurons and synapses that constitute a real brain and which would be needed to run a program of such sophistication that it could converse in Chinese in a way that made it indistinguishable from a real Chinese person.
Me. I guess that's the sort of thing a W.O.M.A.N would say. They can't think, you know. They just look up answers in a book. All they do is "correlate one set of formal symbols with another set of formal symbols".
W.O.M.A.N. You are an idiot. You are so not getting your essay on Mao.
We could try running the brain simulation program on a W.O.M.A.N. (World's Only Mechanical Algorithmic Network)
ReplyDeleteI attach a transcript of the conversation (translated from the original Chinese by Babelfish, which does not understand Chinese, of course)
Me. Hello.
W.O.M.A.N. Hello.
Me. Can you really think?
W.O.M.A.N. Of course I can.
Me. Write me a 2,000 word essay on the impact of Chairman Mao on the Chinese economy in the 60's.
W.O.M.A.N. I see somebody has a university essay to write, and is too lazy to do the research.
Me. I just wanted to see if you really could understand books in Chinese.
W.O.M.A.N. Of course I can. I can look at Chinese symbols and understand what they mean, as easily as you can read English.
Me. But John Searle has proved that a mechanical algorithm cannot really understand, no matter how sophisticated the program is. A W.O.M.A.N. cannot really think, unlike a man.
A W.O.M.A.N. just gets so good at following the instructions their responses are "absolutely indistinguishable from those of Chinese speakers." Just by looking at your answers, nobody can tell you "don't speak a word of Chinese.", but a W.O.M.A.N. cannot think.
W.O.M.A.N. - Surely Searle's thought experiment has limited itself to simple look-up tables, rather than the almost unimaginably complex interactions of neurons and synapses that constitute a real brain and which would be needed to run a program of such sophistication that it could converse in Chinese in a way that made it indistinguishable from a real Chinese person.
Me. I guess that's the sort of thing a W.O.M.A.N would say. They can't think, you know. They just look up answers in a book. All they do is "correlate one set of formal symbols with another set of formal symbols".
W.O.M.A.N. You are an idiot. You are so not getting your essay on Mao.