Harv,

Consider carefully what you have said.

>>>I could do the same with any program that I may write, but am I really doing? I am merely giving the user the impression that my program is happy that it won. However, the program is not really aware that it won, is it? >Again, think of the Chinese Room. The people outside the room fully believe they are talking to native Chinese speakers in the room (that they cannot see). However, if we are inside the room we realize that there is no native speaker - in fact no one understands Chinese. >This conflicts with actual human experience.>We are not merely automatons that process data and simply give the appropriate response that our genes via evolution are required to give.>Rather, we experience an awareness of understanding.>I know you think this is programmable, but I have not the slightest idea how to do it. It's not computer processing power that would limit my ability to create such a program, rather I don't have the foggiest idea on how to code something like that, do you? >All of my ideas would simply boil down to people inside a Chinese room who would not understand the language. I can only fool the user of the program into believing that my program is as they are, but in actual fact my program cannot understand a word they are saying. It simply breaks down their sentences into recognizable segments ('you', 'that', 'now', etc) and looks up the actions based on the digital representation as it is translated by an analog receiver. At no point does my program understand what is being said. >This is the problem with strong AI and the reason that we have not found a way to develop conscious AI life forms. It seems that without any major innovation in software design all we can do is fool the user - we cannot code awareness. We just have not the foggiest idea how to do it.

• Testy testy - harvey1 - December 14, 2001 - 17:04 UTC
• Programmers are people too - aurino - December 14, 2001 - 17:32 UTC
  • I don't see your comments as letting me down! - doctordick - December 14, 2001 - 19:24 UTC
    • LOL - harvey1 - December 14, 2001 - 19:28 UTC
      • It's not what you say, Harv - aurino - December 14, 2001 - 20:12 UTC
        • I don't get it - harvey1 - December 14, 2001 - 20:33 UTC
          • I am going to have to agree with alex. - bladesinger - December 15, 2001 - 03:06 UTC
            • It all boils down to the old soul argument, I think - stormcrow - December 15, 2001 - 04:56 UTC
              • Yup NT - bladesinger - December 15, 2001 - 07:37 UTC
              • There is truth. - phillipmartin - December 19, 2001 - 19:42 UTC
            • I'm guessing we can - harvey1 - December 15, 2001 - 12:58 UTC
              • What about... - bladesinger - December 16, 2001 - 05:43 UTC
            • life at the virus level is more complex than human dogma - carefuluniverse - December 16, 2001 - 01:32 UTC