News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Chinese Room Argument by Noughmad on Saturday January 09, 2016 @10:40AM (#10871567)
The real question here is: what difference does it make? The person in the room is useful for the people outside.

I like the Dijkstra quote here: "The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim." No matter how you define "swimming", the submarine works and is useful.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by tim333 on Saturday January 09, 2016 @10:52AM (#10871629)
>what difference does it make?

I guess it touches on whether machines will be able to have conscious experience similar to ours and if so will we be able to achieve immortality through uploading.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by cryoshon on Saturday January 09, 2016 @12:03PM (#10871931)
Will machines be able to have a conscious experience that is similar to ours, probably not, as they're working with different starting materials which are handled in entirely different ways. Still conscious in some ways, probably yes. Conscious enough to discuss it with us and iron out the subjective differences? Maybe eventually.

Will we be able to upload ourselves and maintain our biological consciousness? No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from-- the current problem with saying machines are conscious still applies.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by danbruc on Saturday January 09, 2016 @12:16PM (#10871983)
No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from [...]

You are making an arbitrary choice here - why the neurons? Why not the whole brain? Some structure within the brain? The molecules making up the neurons?

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by cryoshon on Saturday January 09, 2016 @12:32PM (#10872041)
We know people can have only 50% of a full brain and yet be conscious, and we also know that destruction of a few tiny pieces of the brain can result in a loss of consciousness in the sense we mean it here. The commonality is that neuron systems are required; individual neurons are not enough, nor is an entire intact animal brain without certain structures.

The line is arbitrary, but it doesn't matter so much. The factual reality is that neuron systems are what we can currently (currently! this may change) prove gives rise to consciousness, regardless of philosophical attempts at violence against the science.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by ThomPete on Saturday January 09, 2016 @01:25PM (#10872247)
Sorry but thats actually wrong.

Read this:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by cryoshon on Saturday January 09, 2016 @04:11PM (#10872904)
This merely supports my hypothesis that neuron systems are what is needed... you will notice nobody is claiming that there are conscious people with 0% brain matter remaining.
Re:The Chinese Room Argument by ThomPete on Saturday January 09, 2016 @04:38PM (#10872986)
You wrote this:

"We know people can have only 50% of a full brain"

And so the question is how you define a full brain.

Neuron systems are network. It might as well be that a network is needed not the neurons per se.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by murbard2 on Saturday January 09, 2016 @12:19PM (#10871992)
> No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from--

Who's "we", you p-zombie?

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by Confusion on Saturday January 09, 2016 @12:01PM (#10871924)
If 'swimming' is simply defined as 'having the ability to move through water', then a submarine that can not 'swim' is useless.

Similarly, whether a machine can conceivably 'think' is very relevant. We are asking whether a machine can do certain specific things a human can do and are hard to envision a machine doing.

Whatever your response to the Chinese room argument (and more sophisticated variations), it will be a part of your theory of mind that is not obviously correct and will not be accepted by all others without further support.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by throwupper247 on Saturday January 09, 2016 @11:43AM (#10871837)
*Dijkstra