Log in

View Full Version : turing test


tagnostic
June 2nd, 2009, 12:53 PM
anyone want to give this a critique? (http://natesoares.com/writing/chinese-room/)

Yiuel
June 2nd, 2009, 02:52 PM
I don't have much to say.

He does :
1 - Twelve reasons to toss the Turing test (http://www.zompist.com/turing.html)
2 - Understanding the Chinese Room (http://www.zompist.com/searle.html)

The first one is basically ranting about why the Turing test should be tossed away. The second one is a better formed argument against the silliness of Searle's answer to the Turing test.

However, I might add a bit over the processes behind intelligence. We haven't got yet to the point of understanding understanding, but your link is not much far away, I guess. What is really understanding? The second link gives a few assassine quotes :

The wonder is why he thinks this proves anything-- would he expect a single neuron of his own brain to understand English? The men in the gym are tiny parts of a huge system, and there is no reason to expect "understanding" of any component smaller than the entire system.

Perhaps they tell us:
Here's how the mind understands. The mind is composed of three components, the blistis, the morosum, and the hyborebus. The blistis and the morosum have nothing to do with understanding; the part that understands is the hyborebus.
We don't have to know what these things are to know that they've failed. This cannot be an explanation of understanding, because it simply transfers the problem from the "mind" to the "hyborebus". It's like explaining vision by saying that the optic nerve brings the image from the eye to the brain, where it's projected on a screen that's watched by a homunculus. How does the homunculus's vision work?

But that's not merely enough. And I think that the author I quote is misled. He says :

I don't believe in accidental approaches to AI-- the notion (as in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) that if you make a system complex enough, consciousness will simply pop into existence.

Understanding must arise from "accident", or we should ditch out evolution, because we have understanding. It might be the greatest test for evolutionist theories, but I am pretty sure we will be able to get something from there. The website you quote (a blog, I suppose), is going in the right direction. Understanding is no homunculus's job : it's a gestalt of elements from which some unity arise. It's probably more chaotic than the memory of computers, there are probably a lot more to think about before getting the theory right, but he's following a good path.

Requiem
June 5th, 2009, 09:27 PM
He misses the most obvious argument against the turing test, which is that humans fail it regularly.

tagnostic
June 6th, 2009, 05:21 AM
which says more about
most humans
than the test

Nosferatu
June 6th, 2009, 05:50 PM
anyone want to give this a critique? (http://natesoares.com/writing/chinese-room/)

Is this saying that Google is a dumb animal unless we feed it? The question of knowledge as a 'stand alone' entity is in question here. What is knowledge on an alien world? Is it human understanding, or is it something much more than that?

tagnostic
June 6th, 2009, 06:04 PM
I'm defining first facts, which are stand alone
Knowledge is the ability to discover, utilize
and communicate Facts in a meaningful way

just my working definition of what Turing was attempting to quantify.

Nosferatu
June 6th, 2009, 09:08 PM
I'm defining first facts, which are stand alone
Knowledge is the ability to discover, utilize
and communicate Facts in a meaningful way

just my working definition of what Turing was attempting to quantify.

Man as a shell, with a brain as smoothe as an egg, needs to experience in order to plot memory. We are born with basic animal brains, however the part of the brain thsat needs to develope must 'experience'. We continually aquire knowledge in this big empty room when prompted to do so, dont you think? I have often applied this same thinking to 'life forms' outside our normal view of human, but of human kind. Is knowledge the same for all intellects, or just the application of it that affects social status and behavior? We can take Myers-Briggs tests and all the rest, but how differently it would apply under very different circumsatnces.
Is there a need to learn and what prompts it? It is experience that directs feeling and motion toward an ongoing conclusion.

Daruko
June 6th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Can you clarify all that bad poetry a bit?

tagnostic
June 7th, 2009, 05:45 AM
while a majority of learning is through experience, this is not necessarily so, one can be taught without physical experience and one can learn without any external input.
given a completely different environment one would of necessity learn different things at different rates, it would depend on the environment and the sensory organs used to interpret it, however this doesn't effect fundamental laws of nature and reality as we know it, 2+2=4 regardless, gravity still works etc...
i stand by my original definition
regardless of environment or sensory organs...

Nosferatu
June 7th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Can you clarify all that bad poetry a bit?

Just because I didnt have you running naked through the woods [yummm\] describing your robust perfect form doesnt make it bad poetry. I do have a little intellect besides the lust after you gorgeous ass.

Yiuel
June 8th, 2009, 01:36 PM
Man as a shell, with a brain as smoothe as an egg, needs to experience in order to plot memory. We are born with basic animal brains, however the part of the brain thsat needs to develope must 'experience'. We continually aquire knowledge in this big empty room when prompted to do so, dont you think? I have often applied this same thinking to 'life forms' outside our normal view of human, but of human kind. Is knowledge the same for all intellects, or just the application of it that affects social status and behavior? We can take Myers-Briggs tests and all the rest, but how differently it would apply under very different circumsatnces.

The biggest problem with your questioning is knowledge itself. What is knowledge? What is it to know something? Indeed, with such a question, we are question the very meaning of information, something very important.

It is only a feeling, but the information stored in brains is only links between elements, not much more than that. Those links can be very complicated, or far-fetched, but it's nothing more, though there will be a physical expression of those informations, like electricity represent bits of information in the Internet.

If this is the case, there is no difference in the idea of knowledge itself (basically, brain information). Different species (or robots) will have the same knowledge if they have the same information. However, we hardly receive the same information : dogs and whales hear sounds with higher frequencies, so what they hear is not the same as us. Also, we hardly express it the same way as well. So we don't know the same things, and we don't express the same things the same way. So the overall effect should be that alien intelligence, whether robots or ETs, won't show the same things as us, unless we share the same senses (to acquire knowledge) and the same tools to express them.

Is there a need to learn and what prompts it? It is experience that directs feeling and motion toward an ongoing conclusion.

Is there a need for knowledge? If we take knowledge as information about the environment, we can see that, obviously, there is, if not a need, at least good reasons for knowledge : if you have information about what is about you, things get easier to find materials, energy, tools and space : things life need.

From that, we can ask ourselves if there is a need to acquire knowledge. If we have a set set of information, that's all okay, but it won't change. However, if we had a set that could change (acquire information and thus knowledge), things get again a lot easier. The world changes a lot about you : you never know what is next to you, pretty much because everything change. So there is a serious advantage in being able to change our knowledge.

A further question is memory. It's all good to have knowledge. It's all good to have changing knowledge, but what about saving those changes? It gets tricky here, but memory, saving changes in knowledge, is also a powerful tool. When you went somewhere, you got what you needed. Try to go there again. If you couldn't save the change, you cannot know where it was. If you could, you would know. And you go back, and lo! here is what I need again. Do it a few times, and you'll stick there because you know that there is what you need there. So memory is good thing.

Now, we have various memories, is a good idea to have a tool to mix those memories? Well, I know that if I go there I have my food. But when all is done, I finished. So I go away again. But then, a few times, I see there is something else there, a kind of plant I don't like but it's always near at everytime. So I know that if I find that plant, I might find what I am looking for. Linking memories seems good as well.

Nothing of this is needed, in any absolute sense. (Life itself is not a need, but that's another philosophical point.) Even if you have no knowledge of the world, you might be able to live. Even if you couldn't change that knowledge, even if you couldn't save those changes, even if you couldn't link those changes. But it is, obviously, very useful.

Nosferatu
June 9th, 2009, 07:39 PM
The biggest problem with your questioning is knowledge itself. What is knowledge? What is it to know something? Indeed, with such a question, we are question the very meaning of information, something very important.

It is only a feeling, but the information stored in brains is only links between elements, not much more than that. Those links can be very complicated, or far-fetched, but it's nothing more, though there will be a physical expression of those informations, like electricity represent bits of information in the Internet.

If this is the case, there is no difference in the idea of knowledge itself (basically, brain information). Different species (or robots) will have the same knowledge if they have the same information. However, we hardly receive the same information : dogs and whales hear sounds with higher frequencies, so what they hear is not the same as us. Also, we hardly express it the same way as well. So we don't know the same things, and we don't express the same things the same way. So the overall effect should be that alien intelligence, whether robots or ETs, won't show the same things as us, unless we share the same senses (to acquire knowledge) and the same tools to express them.



Is there a need for knowledge? If we take knowledge as information about the environment, we can see that, obviously, there is, if not a need, at least good reasons for knowledge : if you have information about what is about you, things get easier to find materials, energy, tools and space : things life need.

From that, we can ask ourselves if there is a need to acquire knowledge. If we have a set set of information, that's all okay, but it won't change. However, if we had a set that could change (acquire information and thus knowledge), things get again a lot easier. The world changes a lot about you : you never know what is next to you, pretty much because everything change. So there is a serious advantage in being able to change our knowledge.

A further question is memory. It's all good to have knowledge. It's all good to have changing knowledge, but what about saving those changes? It gets tricky here, but memory, saving changes in knowledge, is also a powerful tool. When you went somewhere, you got what you needed. Try to go there again. If you couldn't save the change, you cannot know where it was. If you could, you would know. And you go back, and lo! here is what I need again. Do it a few times, and you'll stick there because you know that there is what you need there. So memory is good thing.

Now, we have various memories, is a good idea to have a tool to mix those memories? Well, I know that if I go there I have my food. But when all is done, I finished. So I go away again. But then, a few times, I see there is something else there, a kind of plant I don't like but it's always near at everytime. So I know that if I find that plant, I might find what I am looking for. Linking memories seems good as well.

Nothing of this is needed, in any absolute sense. (Life itself is not a need, but that's another philosophical point.) Even if you have no knowledge of the world, you might be able to live. Even if you couldn't change that knowledge, even if you couldn't save those changes, even if you couldn't link those changes. But it is, obviously, very useful.


Knowledge stands on its own; it must be experienced and reflected upon.