Alex,

The Chinese Room argument has nothing to do with mathematics. In fact, strong AI at this point has little to do with mathematics.

Strong AI is a thesis that says in one form or another that computers will be able to have the same kind of intentional states as humans. Some are suggesting that what is holding all this wonderful technology back (where you can have your own friend or spouse designed just for you), is computing power. If Intel does their job right, you and I can be discussing these subjects with a computer (with the idea that they will be teaching us in a relatively short time, and may even grow weary of humans shortly after that - hence, The Terminator, The Matrix, etc).

Well, the Chinese Room is a refutation of the simple version of those arguments. It says hold on a second, the Chinese Room is what is actually happening with existing software design, so how do we overcome these hurdles?

Everyone so far is way off in their counterarguments. Making systems more complicated won't magically get rid of conceptual problems (any more than advanced rocket research will get rid of the speed of light limitation from SR). Dismissing the concept of awareness is also a poor argument since everyone from college professors to employers is interested if they are associating with those who are mentally aware. If someone has the awareness of an existing computer they would be failed, divorced, fired, expelled, and probably thrown into some mental health facility. In other words, denying the problem is ridiculous.

Your argument of attacking philosophers and cozying up to mathematics is way out in left field.

Warm regards, Harv

• Harvey, I thought you understand logic, but you don't. - alexander - December 16, 2001 - 16:33 UTC
  • Thus, you were mistaken - carefuluniverse - December 16, 2001 - 19:04 UTC
    • Who is mistaken? Mathematical nature? Ho, ho ho. - alexander - December 17, 2001 - 20:44 UTC