News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Chinese Room Argument by DougBTX on Saturday February 20, 2010 @07:21PM (#1139795)
Since you could fit someone who speaks Chinese in the room... assuming people are made of elementary particles.
Re:The Chinese Room Argument by afterz on Sunday February 21, 2010 @10:14AM (#1140641)
I still don't believe you. So the numbers are made up? "15 minutes" -> "entire planet"? How much for 10 minutes? And for 1 minute? Is that obvious too?

So you think it's very obvious that it's impossible to build a chatbot that speaks chinese for 15 minutes in a computer like the one I'm using now (even one that claims to be a child for example). And why couldn't we just clone a Chinese person brain and say it's a computer? Why do you think a brain snapshot would require the size of a planet?

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by DougBTX on Sunday February 21, 2010 @11:44AM (#1140756)
I still don't believe you.

Ah, sorry, the "more elementary particles than the entire planet" claim wasn't made by me. My first comment was too vague, here is another try:

Yes, it sounds like a very strange claim, since isn't biological material made from elementary particles, and clearly you could fit someone who speaks Chinese into the room. Obviously that assumes that people are made of elementary particles, but if someone is going to argue that, I'm going to need a better definition of elementary particles to make any progress.

Re:The Chinese Room Argument by jeffcoat on Saturday February 20, 2010 @07:29PM (#1139805)
You've assumed your conclusion there: that the system Searle describes is able to encode information in a way similar to a human Chinese speaker.