>>24998069
It is a proof that it is not necessarily true that X is understood just because a human level output is created, which I think everyone understood already, but it totally fails to show that any particular or any class of thing does not understand any particular thing or class of thing. People citing it as why some specific or hypothetical AI is not or cannot be sentient are indeed psueds. Any attempt to disprove artificial intelligence or artificial consciousness like the Chinese Room which could with minimal tweaking be applied to the biological brain are prima facie incorrect.

>>24998069
can a machine have a soul?

>>24998082
>it totally fails to show that any particular or any class of thing does not understand any particular thing or class of thing
Aside from the axiom that the operator doesn't understand Chinese, yeah.

>>24998069
The room, as an aggregate, knows Chinese.
The man himself does not know Chinese.
If the man were to memorize the book, he would know Chinese.

>>24998082
>It is a proof that it is not necessarily true that X is understood just because a human level output is created
How does it prove even that much? Why does it matter whether there's a guy operating the room?

the trap is where he thinks he could produce legible output without cognition
that is the conceit

>>24998232
It doesn't "know." It's like all the flashing lights on your computer which is an input/output as well. Your computer doesn't know what a horse is, we know that it doesn't know, but it can flash a bunch of lights that show a horse. Or even simpler, just turning on the faucet. You turn the handle and get water. Obviously the faucet doesn't know anything. It's all input/output machinery.

File: pepe-3rd-eye-pepe-see-the(...).png (169 KB, 498x498)

169 KB PNG

>>24998650
Input/output is what knowing is.

(YOU), the thing experiencing this right now, do not "know" anything beyond the input/output of your body.

File: tumblr_3b277f2e40fd452b7d(...).jpg (62 KB, 540x552)

62 KB JPG

It shows that discursive, calculative rule following alone doesn't produce understanding or "thought." This is pretty obvious, it's just a clever way of showing it.

Or, it *should* be obvious. Unfortunately, due to the problems that are generated by nominalism and the denial of real natures that interact with the mind, and so real quiddities, a lot of modern thought tends towards thinking of reason as nothing but a calculator. It just *is* a rule following function. In the older model, we would say this picture is essentially what it would look like if man had only dianoia/ratio and no noesis/intellectus (i.e., no act of understanding). The benefit of such a move is that it makes thought wholly mechanistic, which is a plus if you are already committed to a mechanistic understanding of reality and causality (of course, this view has a host of other problems).

Back when machines and heat engines were the new technology, everyone wanted to conceptualize the cosmos as a heat engine. Now its computers, and you see something very similar, "the universe is a quantum computer." Of course, under pancomputationalism the entire idea of computational theory of mind is undermined, since being a "computer" or doing "information processing" doesn't make brains or bodies at all unique. Plus, physicalism tends towards representationalism and downstream of that, merelogical nihilism so brains (like any physical system) cannot even be defined as real wholes. There are all sorts of issues here. Information is also essentially relational, and so the sort of reductionist building block ontology so dominant in the minds of materialists, and still in neuroscience (which has become first philosophy for many physicalists) is ruled out. It's noteworthy that this sort of reductionism is actually largely an object of derision in the physical sciences, and it's really the life sciences that hold on to it. Anyhow, if you want to keep this model intact then language has to be the result of "computing really hard" (which at least starts to allow formal casuality a bit) or worse "balls or stuff bouncing just so). Hence, the Chinese Room becomes relevant in that it shows that this sort of mechanistic rule following doesn't explain the act of understanding (even though this should be obvious).

File: pepe-are-you-serious.gif (85 KB, 638x616)

85 KB GIF

>>24998658
Fundamentalists *wish* they could summon the level of sheer reality denying dogmatism that leads materialists to deny that they actually have thoughts.

>>24998658
Your claim is unfalsifiable. I could also claim that I'm a reincarnated unicorn who recently regained knowledge of my previous existence after I had a bad fall down the stairs a few years ago.

>>24998650
But I also don't know what a horse is. It's a label for a set of inputs that can be triggered even when there's no horse, like when I look at a bunch of flashing lights faking the input.

File: real-materialists-dont-be(...).jpg (70 KB, 500x714)

70 KB JPG

>>24998658
>Input/output is what knowing is
>X is what y is
>is
Stop doing metaphysics. "Is," "being," and "existence" are just metaphysical woo woo. "Knowledge" is just a magical folk psychology term, on par with thinking demons cause diseases. Knowledge is imprecise. There are just physical states that predict future physical states (in the unexceptional and arbitrary context of a "human head").

>>24998672
(YOU) experience thoughts

>>24998678
That's because it's not a claim, it's clarifying definitions. Knowledge is not a part of your consciousness.

>>24998685
>pic
abstract concepts exist physically as an arrangement of neural patterns in your brain
it is no different from a piece of software existing on a flash drive

QED

>>24998678
Nothing is "falsifiable." Truth is a metaphysical woo term. There are only clouds of particles.

>>24998069
I think I'm turning Chinese...

>>24998696
>Truth is a metaphysical woo term
It's a normative term for human consensus. Read Rorty.

>>24998665
you hate materialism because you have no good argument against it

>>24998695
>QED
Thoughts of logical implication are just atoms colliding a certain way. They have no essential relation to logical implication. Your sense of certainty or of understanding how one thing implies another is also just atoms colliding and so has no deeper meaning since the relationship between the collisions and any "implication" is accidental.

There is no objective meaning, only subjective illusion. Cry if you want, science has proved this beyond the shadow of a doubt.

>>24998765
>Thoughts of logical implication are just atoms colliding a certain way
That is literally what I just said
>They have no essential relation to logical implication
>the relationship between the collisions and any "implication" is accidental
You are still saying that "logical implication" has some "essence" that is apart from material. They are the same thing, there is nothing to separate. Everything that is a thought can be described through the arrangement of matter.

You are not a real materialist.

QED.

materialism is for faggots

Time to admit that we should just presuppose vitalism so m*terialists don't try their sleight of hand tricks on us.

>>24998765
>Thoughts of logical implication are just atoms colliding a certain way.
Not only wrong but woefully undereducated.

>>24998721
Materialism has been infinitely btfo a million times over, at this point you're just a sissy begging to be humiliated again.

>>24998721
>Invoking explanations involving intentionality
You're not a real materialist. Anon is just producing an output due to chemical interactions that have deterministically unfolded since the Big Bang.

>thoughts don't exist you are not conscious
>there are just particles deterministically interacting there is no free will or action
>please do not read Kant or question logical positivism or the underlying assumptions of my worldview that would be very bad

Its funny because a materialist has literally zero answer to the prospect of other minds existing, therefore all physicalist philosophy is just a form of solipsism.

File: 1753489782505.jpg (80 KB, 587x408)

80 KB JPG

>>24998765
"lol. lmao."

>>24998882
>there are just particles deterministically interacting
Is not incompatible with free will. "You" are the process.

>>24998069
How are you filtered by the Chinese room?
It's a little story to say that knowledge and understanding are different from any external performance and/or rule following linking symbolic representations.

>>24998650
>Is it just because it's comfortably pro-human?
Basically yeah. Even non-religious people tend to get morally outraged at the idea that they don't have the thingamajig that would make them fundamentally different from and incomparable to a rock with lots of logic gates.

See
>>24998650
>>24998672

At the time when it was first raised, the issue of qualia was curious, but mostly irrelevant. Today the actual scientific practice has reached the consensus of
>"okay well your Hard Problem is so amazingly Hard that we're all fine with treating it as unapproachable and therefore unscientific, basically assuming that qualia is a huge meme, we can't get grants for stuff we can't run an experiment for"
and moved about 500 parsecs beyond that in the same direction.

By now the whole thing has actively reduced itself down to
>"Well if you say that qualia does not exist then you say that thoughts don't exist and YOU don't exist"
while Chalmers himself was adamant on how this is a fundamentally flawed argument, since the problem itself is formulated as whether qualia would be an integral and necessary element of (you) as a consciousness. Stating that there can be no (you) without qualia straight up declares that there is no Hard Problem of Consciousness - since (you) solved it, proving that there can be no consciousness without qualia through the argument of there being no consciousness without qualia. Which is obviously circular, so that's where pretty much every single neurophysiologist, psychologist and computer scientist on the world goes
>"sure ok whatever you say bro"

>>24999207
>scientists are money grubbing morons that mindfuck themselves when there isn't a single, reducible answer to a complex issue
what else is new?

>>24999224
>what else is new?
Well, the shit we come up with is - like this Internet thing you're using to waste your time.

>>24999229
a bit defensive, are we?

>>24999231
Obviously - you talk mad shit about my job like you know anything, I call you a bag gay faggot. Sounds fair desu.

>>24998665
Based

>>24998886
No "minds" exist. Minds and souls are woo folk psychology terms and unscientific. Show me one (1) empirical measurement of a mind, ever. You can't.

File: Screenshot_20260106-194623.png (1.7 MB, 1080x1315)

1.7 MB PNG

>>24998875

Searle’s point falls apart because for someone so anti-computationalist he is basically making the mistake of thinking a computer is only the processor. the chinese room posits a situation where you are looking at the processor and being like “without access to memory we can’t say the whole system is conscious” well yeah, duh. in a human brain memory and processing run on the same hardware as opposed to separate units, and together the whole thing in conscious. similarly the memory of searle’s room (the book of chinese symbols) is not conscious, the processor (the translator) is not conscious, but together they create an obviously conscious mind. we can separate these parts of the hardware in computers but not in humans but he completely misunderstands, basically searle is an idiot.

apologies for bad english

>>24998685
>There are
Amateur.

>>24999106
Does the room not demonstrate understanding, to the point of passing the Turing test with flying colours?
>>24999231
This entire thread proves that armchair "philosophers" of today are gayer and faggier than even the most reddit of scientists.

>>24999693
Isn't the hippocampus the distinct part of the brain that handles long-term memory? Surely it's (relatively) easy to separate the two for us. Never heard of a frontal lobotomy?

>>24999719
>Isn't the hippocampus the distinct part of the brain that handles long-term memory?
No. Brain has exactly zero "distinct parts that handle" any element of the cognition. It has parts which are, when damaged, most likely to show loss of certain function, but in pretty much every case we know for a fact that performance of this function definitely involves activity of other regions in the brain, and this function can also suffer from those parts of the brain being damaged, and sometimes even from damage to areas that don't seem to be connected to this function in any way aside from this damage. And to make matter even better, sometimes the original area may get damaged severely without any loss of function whatsoever because fuck you.

The ancient cerebral functional specialization theory you're invoking here was basically like using a screwdriver to poke holes in an open CPU crystal and looking at a display to try and figure out whether it's any specific core or the cache that is responsible for Windows Explorer. Hence the old iteration being scientifically dead and deboonked. The more up to date theory still operates with functional regions, but those specialized functions are way the fuck more complex and esoteric, like what we understand as "memory" being a product of approximately dozen such cerebral functions (with several competing classifications of these), and it also recognizes human brain as annoyingly much more flexible in it's architecture than it would be convenient for neat functional categorization, and still it's just one of the contemporary theories being employed in modern neuroscience.

>>24998069
This makes more sense when connected to his theory of intentionality

>>24998765
>There is no objective meaning, only subjective illusion.
Yet you can never be sure of even your own claims under that system. The only remaining difference is whether you are also willing to admit to being intellectually dishonest by pretending to be certain anyway, or not.

>>24999830
Selection effects are real whether you like them to be or not. Science is selective. Only science, not metaphysical woo woo gives us nuclear weapons, vaccines, stealth fighters, etc. Whoever fails to accept science will die off. Selection will lead onward towards the acceptance of science and science shows that concepts like free will and consciousness are folk woo woo just like demons and gods.

What's with the seething about "materialism" lately? Is it wrapped up in the faggoty push for a Christian revival (that is never going to happen btw)?

>>24998875
No it hasn't. The only argument (it's not a real argument because it misses the point) is screaming about consciousness and claiming it can't come from the brain (which is completely wrong)

File: images (88).jpg (39 KB, 495x619)

39 KB JPG

>>25000560
Athiests have birth rates that will tank their population by more than the Black Death EACH generation. Even in their own natural selection paradigm the ideology is the equivalent of some particularly disruptive genetic disorder.

It's true that mainline Protestantism and liberal Christianity are going extinct. Evangelicalism has become therapeutized in the center and "left," while it often tends towards a sort of political identity on the right instead of a faith. It's been intellectually hollowed out in that respect because it is committed to liberalism and all the assumptions of modernity, just with a thin "faith" layered on top of it. But traditional Christianity is having a revival. My church (Orthodox) just opened a new building 45 minutes away to cater to people who were driving in from great distances and it is already completely packed. The Catechumen class for just the new branch has like 40 people. And unlike most churches I've been to over the years, the young outnumber the old.

>>25000573
Not true, there are also all sorts of attacks on reductionism (which isn't even popular in the physical sciences anymore), the epistemic issues of empiricism, supervenience, Hemple's Dilemma, etc.

>>25000582
Physicalism is the most commonly held position by neuroscientists and philosophers of mind.

>>25000576
This is just cope. Atheism is growing faster than any religion. You guys screaming about birth rates are showing you do not actually even know what the game is. As a percentage of the population, there is no mass conversion of the young to christianity. Jesus didn't rise and he's never coming back.

>>25000592
Wrong, thankfully Islam is growing the fastest In Sha Allah. And Athiestroons will get destroyed. I don't like Christianity but I'd rather them be Muslim first then Christian second, atheists will have no power when Muslims take over, AllahSWT has humiliated atheists

>>25000594
Muslims also leave the religion in the west by the 2nd generation. Islam is also declining.
If you want a non-atheist worldview, it will necessarily need to be the 'spiritual but not religious" or whatever, as that's the only non-atheist position that's actually growing as religious apostasy continues. Basically, paganism.

>>25000597
>Muslims also leave the religion in the west by the 2nd generation
No we don't, actually thankfully Muslims on the west are getting more radical and hanging onto their deen. Islam is not declining LMAO. Either way Islam will enter every door, weather people like it or not

>>25000601
Muslims in the west are like 3% of the total population, and are indeed declining. This doesn't even get into the mass apostasy in the middle east. You're also clearly a not a muslim.
Islam is losing just like christianity.

File: 20250826_154342.jpg (108 KB, 1062x1416)

108 KB JPG

>>25000603
>Muslims in the west are like 3% of the total population, and are indeed declining.
Wrong, Muslims in Europe have a tfr above replacement and thankfully growing steady in America.
>This doesn't even get into the mass apostasy in the middle east.
Actually there isn't the Muslim Skeptic addresses this in one of his videos
>You're also clearly a not a muslim.
I took my Shahadah and do salah five times a day

>>25000607
I was wrong, it's 4.9% of Europe and 1% of the united states.
This compared to over 50% religious nones in Europe and 30% religious nones in the united states. The growth of religious nones outpaces any religion in both the US and Europe, as well as around the world.
You're not growing faster nor do you have a greater population. Basically no one goes from Atheism to Islam, but it happens the other way around all the time.

>>25000611
Wrong desu. Even thankfully look at places with like 5%to 20% Muslim like Germany, France, UK. Even at such a minority Muslims thankfully are pushing for sharia and wanting to be heard. Obviously we will not see this in our life but MashAllah, in 200 years it will be Muslim and that is what we plan for.

>>25000612
>Wrong desu
No it isn't. Muslims are about 4-5% of the European population. You are very silly.

File: better.jpg (29 KB, 474x385)

29 KB JPG

better explanation

>>25000614
In some western European countries they're 10-20% and you won't be able to kick us out. Most are just good people who want to work and contribute to Europe but also be Muslim, but because the EU basically makes it illegal to be a Heterosexual Masculine man now they get hated on. The real enemy are Zionist jews

>>25000618
>In some western European countries they're 10-20%
No, they're like 10-20% in some cities. There is no western country where the overall population is 20% muslim.
Your children will not be muslim.

>>25000619
France, Belgium, and Netherlands. And yes they will be, because we actually care about monotheism and our religion. I also like how you ignored my point about Zionist Jews being the enemy, not Muslims

>>25000620
>France, Belgium, and Netherlands
None of them have a 20% muslim population
>And yes they will be
They wont
>because we actually care about monotheism and our religion.
so did christians
>I also like how you ignored my point about Zionist Jews being the enemy, not Muslims
Jews, christians, and muslims are all the enemy, and you will all be eradicated.

>>25000643
>None of them have a 20% muslim population
Belgium does as well as France
>Jews, christians, and muslims are all the enemy, and you will all be eradicated.
Nigga you won't do anything. The average 13 morrocan would kill you

>>24998069
I mean this is blatantly vitalistic in nature but the NPC phenomenon seems to be proof to vitalism is true as long as you define a soul as the ability to reflect on ones own existence.
The pseud part is applying this to just AI and not humans as well.
Anyone that's worked retail in a low income area knows that there are people out there who are genuinely going through life like the man in the room looking up Chinese symbols.

In fact it's most people. This touches on an idea of mine that modern discourse and politics is shaped by the thought that most people are at least as smart as say, the common 4chan or reddit poster or twitter posters that you follow and interact with on politics and general theory.

But in reality people who comment about politics and theory online are less than 10% of Western society. Compared to the whole world it's probably less than 1%. MOST people never comment online at all. The average person is so dumb that they're functionally illiterate but because they never enter into discussions most politically active people don't even understand they exist

>>25000646
No, they don't.
Belgium has a 6% muslim population
France is 9%
>Nigga you won't do anything. The average 13 morrocan would kill you
We already are eradicating you. You're a pussy and you can't do anything.

>>25000691
>Belgium has a 6% muslim population
>France is 9%
Maybe in 2005, now.its far up
>We already are eradicating you. You're a pussy and you can't do anything
Who is we lmao you are ruled by your women and get slimed by 15 year old afghans and morrocans who one shot stab you.

>>25000706
>Maybe in 2005, now.its far up
Nope. You're retarded
>Who is we lmao you are ruled by your women and get slimed by 15 year old afghans and morrocans who one shot stab you.
This is a pathetic incel fantasy as well. This does not happen. Muslims get killed all the time in my country (the US). Within 5 years, you're all going to be exterminated by artificially controlled drones.
You're retarded buddy, which makes sense as you're a muslim.

>>25000709
>This is a pathetic incel fantasy as well.
You have no fault divorce and women politicians, also a woman who cheats is allowed to live and not be put to death. Yeah you are ruled by women
>Muslims get killed all the time in my countr
Everyone gets killed there and Islam is actually growing desu
>Within 5 years, you're all going to be exterminated by artificially controlled drones.
Imagine seething so hard over people who legit do nothing wrong while being rules by Jews and women z yoy have misplaced hatred brother

>>24998069
interesting illustration of the difference between language and meaning. honestly this applies to most people as well, who just say things mindlessly in response to words without understanding what the other person means or is thinking
>>24998658
lmao dumbass

>>25000720
>lmao dumbass
That anon is right. "you" are not a soul inside a meat puppet body, you are your body and brain.

>>24998069
It's similar to being a Windows network admin.

>>25000723
input/ output is LANGUAGE aka spoken words. in the chinese room analogy your brain is the person in the room and the one who comes up with knowledge based on the input of language

>>25000709
>Within 5 years, you're all going to be exterminated by artificially controlled drones.
lol
>Let billionaires AI killbot armies
>"We're totally going to cull just the minorities bro, not all poors."

>USA
Daily reminder that in neither term, despite control of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court had Trump and his party held one (1) vote changing migration law. It's all temporary executive action shit than can be reversed at will (as it was under Biden). The reason they don't do anything lasting is because richfags love migration to keep rents up and wages down. All Trump has done is publicity shit, harassing some people, while making no meaningful change in demographic trends and notably doing nothing legally to ensure long-term trends.
>"Hurr, if we fixed it long term we couldn't run on it as an election issue and get you to accept more neoliberalism and debt funded tax cuts for billionaires."

>>25000735
it is a terrible thought experiment because it implies that legible and proper output is possible with a dictionary at scale

>>25000757
>Searle can see no essential difference between the roles of the computer[d] and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.
i think that the reason it's actually bad is the equivalent of the brain of the computer in the analogy is not searle's brain but searle's body

Why does the fact that your mind is your brain cause so much seething among the lesser IQ?

>>25000769
Why does that make a difference?

>>25000869
The mind is just blood. Consider that no one has conscious experiences once their blood is removed. If you start removing someone's blood, their consciousness changes. The more blood you pump out, the less conscious they are. Take enough blood out and they become inert. Therefore the mind is blood.

>>25000869
they just cannot grasp it. their understanding of consciousness is the same as the cave man of 15,000 years ago. muh soul! muh spirits!

>>25000909
because his analogy is supposedly about his imaginary self not "understanding" chinese. it doesn't contradict the goal of his analogy, which is to prove that computers don't understand chinese, which is a trivial point to make anyway

>>25000869
>>25000917
the brain is machinery that creates the mind, that then uses machinery to express language

>>25000916
The mind is just the pinky toe. If I take an electrode with enough power and apply it to your pinky toe it will cause you to act in certain ways. You will yelp, "ouch, my toe." And if I turn it up and keep it applied soon your entire consciousness will be focused on your toe. Your blood pressure will rise, your endocrine system will adjust, your brain activity will radically alter. Everything will change just by applying electricity to your pinky toe. Therefore the mind is the pinky toe.

>>25000936
The mind is diffuse in space. Just consider the experimental evidence. Every day, thousands of people go to opthalmologists and optometrists. They seat them in a chair and then project letters onto a mirror in front of them. Then they ask them to read them off.

Well, when the tech flips a switch the letters change. And guess what! The EM activity of the light bouncing off the wall CAUSES the patient to read off just the very letter the tech has presented there. And the sound waves released by the tech telling the patient to read shift their sense of subjective focus onto the letters and cause them to read them. The contents of the mind are this dependent upon the light on the wall. Therefore the mind is the light on the wall. If you didn't have the physical system of the light on the wall, the person wouldn't read the letters. Therefore the wall must be part of the mind!

>>25000723
Stick a brain in a vacuum. How many thoughts is it having? Rip a brain out of its body, how many thoughts will it have? Clearly the mind is the light on the wall in the example above. Physicalism tells us experience must supervene over a physical system and the light on the wall is an essential part of the interval of experience we are considering. Therefore it must be part of the system.

>>25000916
>>25000936
The fact that these things are necessary parts of the mind does not change that the mind is the brain/nervous system. The mind being multifaceted and parallel does not stop it from ultimately physical and reductionist. The mind having multiple parts to it does not change it from being physical.
You guys are silly. Yes, if I remove your blood, your mind will die. Yes, if I fuck with your nervous system, your mind will change states. All of this is completely logical and does not refute the mind being the brain/nervous system.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you are not attempting to argue against the mind being the brain.

>>25000945
Yes, a mind that never has any stimulus does not exist. This is just because minds are contingent and there is no such thing as a non-contingent mind in any possible world. But that's obvious.

you literally dont know if the other person youre talking to isnt doing the same pick response that matches optimal predicted outcome, without even having a self in the first hand. the vaxx fiasco demonstrated people like that are like 85% of whole adult population.

>>25000961
"Mind" is not information processing and it must precede space and time.

>>25000980
>you literally dont know if the other person youre talking to isnt doing the same pick response that matches optimal predicted outcome
The other person is doing that. You are doing that. Everyone does that. That is what thinking is.

Consciousness is software that pursues benefits based on past data and ingrained value systems. You are rewarded for obtaining food, shelter, mating, more meta behaviors like socializing, or making things, etc., and in each case choose to do what you believe will bring you the most reward based on the things you have done in the past.
The ingrained reward system is based on the selective pressures applied to your ancestors.

If there were no reward for anything, you wouldn't even think. You would be totally catatonic. Indeed, this often happens when the neurotransmitters related to rewards are disrupted.

>>25001002
>The other person is doing that. You are doing that. Everyone does that. That is what thinking is.
i am not in fact saying whatever i think will bring me the greatest advantage to manipulate people. i am expressing my thoughts with language.

>>25000919
I wonder, if he eventually learned to read and write Chinese through the process (a not unthinkable occurrence, as anyone who's dabbled in linguistics or code breaking could tell you), to the point where he wouldn't need the program - would that prove that the program always understood?
Either way, it's a bafflingly retarded argument.

>>25001026
>i am not in fact saying whatever i think will bring me the greatest advantage to manipulate people
I didn't say anything even close to that.
You are trying to obtain a reward from your brain's reward system.
Socializing (expressing your thoughts) gives you a reward, which is why you do it.

>>25001026
>i am expressing my thoughts with language.
Now ask yourself why

>>24998069
He's basically saying that a computer (or a human) following instructions to converse in chinese only understands the instructions given to it, and not the Chinese itself. This is a very obvious but a not very interesting result, and IMO in no way "proves" that it is impossible to create a machine that is conscious.
We know that human intelligence arose out of complex material processes, and that human intelligence is conditioned on more than just the brain, but the qualities of the body and the environment. The task of creating a machine that incorporates all this is daunting, but it was accomplished in nature, and so with enough knowledge we should be able to create the same thing.
That said, we're a pretty long way from coming even remotely close to this.

>>25001039
>to the point where he wouldn't need the program - would that prove that the program always understood?
it would prove absolutely nothing because the daemon understanding chinese in the chinese room is not analogous to a person understanding chinese. it would be something like a machine that directly responds to input with the right output, with no consciousness
>>25001044
>You are trying to obtain a reward from your brain's reward system.
no i am SAYING what i THINK
>>25001048
not to manipulate people or to bring myself gain in any way

>>25001090
those who are too low iq to understand the conversation should quietly and respectfully observe from a distance

>>25001084
>He's basically saying that a computer (or a human) following instructions to converse in chinese only understands the instructions given to it, and not the Chinese itself.
he's making a terrible analogy with a very technical definition of what a computer is-i.e. a computer program rather than a computer program and data or whatever (the entire chinese room should be the computer, not the man)
>>25001097
you're the one who can't grasp the concept of saying exactly what you're thinking lmao

>>25001084
we know a machine can become as conscious as human are, because we are matter made to think as well

this is apriori

>>25000948
>The mind is the brain
>But also your blood and your pinky toe and the light on the wall you are seeing.
If your "is" is the "is" of identity, then since A = B = C it would follow that our brains are also our toes, our blood, and the light on the wall, which is absurd.

Experience is a process. Any given interval of experience involves more than the brain. The physical system that gives rise to consciousness for any given interval will always involve more than just the brain. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say the mind just is the brain. The brain in a vacuum, or in 99% of the environments that exist in the universe, does not produce consciousness.

So that's the first problem. The second problem is that superveniance in substance ontologies is impossible to clearly define. This can be shown in the Problem of the Many, but it's really just the ancient Problem of the One and the Many in disguise. Tell me, how do you decide exactly which atoms are part of my brain at any given moment? How could this be done for my body versus the environment? What concrete way is there for you to define a physical system? Since any physical system that produces any interval of consciousness will always involve more than just the brain, and will always involve a constant flow of matter, energy, and information across its boundaries, in what sense does it represent a whole? At best you can try to tie a given interval of experience to the specific physical system that gave rise to it (but this will be a relatively arbitrary grouping, that is based on consciousness itself).

You can switch to a process metaphysics, or an information ontology, but then information is inherently relational and not reductionist. Different is different if we start looking to computation as our model instead of a "building block" ontology of atoms.

Note however that the building block ontology is generally derided in the actual physical sciences and is mostly still held up as a paradigm by neophytes and those in the life sciences, particularly neuroscience. But we might suppose that neuroscience tends towards bottom up explanations simply because it lacks a good top-down theory of consciousness. At any rate, the key presupposition of reductionism, smallism, the idea that all facts about large things are explainable in terms of facts about smaller parts (i.e., that all wholes are defined in terms of their parts) and that "smaller = more fundamental" is not prima facie true. Bigism is just as reasonable. And in fact, quantum field theory suggests bigism, as do all the problems with defining part/whole relations under physicalism. There is just one universal process. Particles are just theoretical abstractions, the result of truly global field interactions.

But bigism is problematic too, because clearly there is multiplicity, most obviously a multiplicity of discrete minds. So neither of these work well. What is wanted is a via media.

File: combine_images (17).jpg (222 KB, 1086x552)

222 KB JPG

>>25000961
Infinite being lacks nothing possessed by finite being. So while it would be an equivocation to say that infinite being, whose essence is existence, possessed a mind like men, it nonetheless is not without the perfections had by man. Finite created being is a limitation on infinite being. But infinite being is not a being, or a type of being, but subsistent being itself, the ground of being. Creatures "live and move and have [their] being" (Saint Paul via Saint Luke, Acts 17:28) within infinite being, which is truly transcendent, "within everything but contained by nothing" (Saint Augustine). The forms of things, their logoi, are an absolute unity in the Logos, and only the Logos itself is fully intelligible, for finite creatures are not intelligible wholly in themselves (just imagine explaining what a horse is with reference to no other things, or explaining 5 without reference to 1, or 1 without reference to magnitude, multitude, or unit—see Hegel's Logic, Saint Maximos, Eriugena, etc.).

Infinite being is itself undivided and whole. It is One, and participation in it (in its energies, not its essence, through the logoi) is how anything else is relatively one (whole) itself. Likewise it is Goodness, Truth, and Beauty themselves. These are conceptual distinctions within being, not real distinctions (there is not a thing, plus some additional thing, the thing's truth). They are being from a particular perspective. Thus, Truth is being qua intelligible, the target of the intellect, "all men by nature desire to know" (Aristotle), and the Good is being qua desirable (Plato, Phaedrus). Thinking and being are two sides of the same coin, but a unity in the One (Plotinus).

File: combine_images (19).jpg (456 KB, 1035x1062)

456 KB JPG

>>25001176
>>25000961
Which is all to say, there is a necessary mind in a sense.

...these principles are that (1) the world of space and time does not itself exist in space and time: it exists in Intellect (the Empyrean, pure conscious being); (2) matter, in medieval hylomorphism, is not something “material”: it is a principle of unintelligibility, of alienation from conscious being; (3) all finite form, that is, all creation, is a self-qualification of Intellect or Being, and only exists insofar as it participates in it; (4) Creator and creation are not two, since the latter has no existence independent of the former; but of course creator and creation are not the same; and (5) God, as the ultimate subject of all experience, cannot be an object of experience: to know God is to know oneself as God, or (if the expression seems troubling) as one “with” God or “in” God.

Let me spell out these principles at greater length. In medieval hylomorphism (the matter-form analysis of reality), pure Intellect (consciousness or awareness) is pure actuality, or form, or Being, or God: it is the self-subsistent principle that spawns or “contains” all finite being and experience. Intellect Being is what is, unqualified, self-subsistent, attributeless, dimensionless. It has no extension in space or time; rather, it projects space-time “within” itself, as, analogously, a dreaming intelligence projects a dream-world, or a mind gives being to a thought. The analogy holds in at least three respects: (1) like dreams or thoughts, created things are radically contingent, and dependent at every instant of their existence on what gives them being; (2)as there is nothing thoughts are “made of,” so there is nothing the world is “made of”: being is not a “something” to make things out of; and (3) dreams and thoughts have no existence apart from the intelligence in which they arise, but one cannot point to that intelligence because it is not a thing. In the same way, one cannot point to the Empyrean, the tenth heaven that the Comedy presents as the infinite intelligence/reality “within” which all things exist; remove it and the universe would instantly vanish. Note that the analogy in no way implies that the world is “unreal” or a “dream” (except in contrast to its ontological ground); rather, it expresses the radical non-self-subsistence of finite reality. This understanding of the radical contingency of “created” things is the wellspring of medieval Christian thought, without which the rest of medieval thought makes little sense.

Note also with Avicenna that the causal chain must end with a being whose essence is to exist. For 'what something is' does not explain 'that it is."

>>25000995
>"Mind" is not information processing and it must precede space and time.
Completely incorrect. Literally retarded. Minds can not be necessary as they require patterns and regularities, thus they are contingent. This has nothing to do with the specific structure of a mind, it is true for all minds, whether material or some other thing.
>>25001176
>>25001181
See the above. Minds are not, and can not, be fundamental in any possible world. This can be formally modally proved.
God is not real, lil bro, you're wasting your time.

>>25001136
>If your "is" is the "is" of identity, then since A = B = C it would follow that our brains are also our toes, our blood, and the light on the wall, which is absurd.
No, it isn't. Your mind is the composite of all these things. This is not absurd at all.

>>25001111
A lot of presumptions there, retard.

>>25001250
>minds are contingent
>why?
>BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!

>>25001250
You're talking about processing data, input/outputs, mechanisms completely contingent on space and time.
Other processes that are not minds can do that so you're not working from a definition of a mind. The only phenomena apparently distinct to minds is qualia which can indeed be "formally modally proven" to not be contingent on anything we know including time or space.

>>25001002
>Consciousness is software
Stopped reading there. Comp sci trannies should not be a part of this debate.

>>24998069
The fallacy is in thinking that one can program a machine to perfectly behave "as if" it understands. No matter how close to perfection in may come it can never be perfect if it is not the thing itself.

>>25001111
>as conscious as human are
is a dog as conscious as a human is? is a cockroach as conscious as a dog?

>>25000590
They're all pseuds. Yes, especially the neuroscientists.

>>25001002
>Consciousness is software
are you suggesting that knowledge/ memory is separate from consciousness? because that's what the chinese room is suggesting

>>25001363
you must be clearer with your terms
even the most primitive animals are capable of "memory" of some sort

>>25001363
>are you suggesting that knowledge/ memory is separate from consciousness?
No.

>>25001253
>Your mind is the composite of all these things.
Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>>25001375
has nothing to do with your point that "consciousness is software"-that's not true, it's surely also data. it doesn't "use data", it is the combination of software and data.
>>25001380
so you're not agreeing with the chinese room, so what's your point?

Atheshits hate God. That's their only motivation for arguing consciousness is not even "real".
>>25001250
Case in point.

>>25001386
> "consciousness is software"-that's not true, it's surely also data. it doesn't "use data", it is the combination of software and data.
Software is data, data is software. There is no real distinction between the two.

Separating them as concepts is a pragmatic practice that makes it easier to think about and create software.

>you're not agreeing with the chinese room
You are conversing with the room, not the man in the room. The separation between man and room is arbitrary.

>>25000917
cavemen are much, much closer to the truth of things than bugmen in STEM. spirits permeate everything, and we can intuitively recognize the "other" through other methods of knowing that does not rely on the discursive mind.

>>25001406
>Software is data, data is software. There is no real distinction between the two.
but surely the execution of software is handled by one part of computer (the CPU) and the data is stored in a different part (memory). in the chinese room, a distinction is made between the code (written in a book) and the software (the human)
>You are conversing with the room, not the man in the room.
>The separation between man and room is arbitrary.
if the separation is arbitrary, why are you yourself making a distinction between the room and the man in the rrom? do you agree with the idea that the man in the room understanding chinese is the same as the room understanding chinese?

>>25001413
>but surely the execution of software is handled by one part of computer (the CPU) and the data is stored in a different part (memory)
The data is stored in memory, but it cannot be operated on until it is moved to the CPU. Software is also stored in memory.
Again, it's all 1's and 0's. There is no difference until you start applying arbitrary (useful) human abstractions to the process.

Mapping this onto humans, your consciousness is what is running on the CPU. The stuff that is running on the CPU can access data from the hardware (your brain). But you aren't conscious of it until that happens. You are not presently conscious of all the memories you have ever made, or even all the things you are currently feeling.

>if the separation is arbitrary, why are you yourself making a distinction between the room and the man in the rrom?
I'm not, the thought experiment is. That is what the Chinese room is. Taking consciousness, arbitrarily cutting it in half, and then saying the parts together don't make consciousness.

>do you agree with the idea that the man in the room understanding chinese is the same as the room understanding chinese?
If you take the room to be an aggregate of everything inside of it, then the man knowing Chinese should mean that the room knows Chinese as well.
But saying that the room doesn't know Chinese because the man doesn't know Chinese fails to include the other stuff in the room (the book).

>>25001433
>The data is stored in memory, but it cannot be operated on until it is moved to the CPU. Software is also stored in memory.
so you agree with me and disagree with the chinese room
>I'm not, the thought experiment is. That is what the Chinese room is. Taking consciousness, arbitrarily cutting it in half, and then saying the parts together don't make consciousness.
and you agree that's nonsense
>If you take the room to be an aggregate of everything inside of it, then the man knowing Chinese should mean that the room knows Chinese as well.
what

File: doesgodexistbook.jpg (33 KB, 333x499)

33 KB JPG

>>25001250
Surely you can provide such a proof.

I'll provide five that God DOES exist.

>>24998082
One can easily disprove the concept of Artificial Intelligence with a few basic points. One doesn't need sophist semantics like the Chinese Room to outline those reasons, being:
>All, that is, is fundamentally inseparable. Therefore, Mind cannot be emergent. Mind must be fundamental. Mind is not a pattern that can be recognized. Mind is the process of communication and being, which occurs at all levels of existence ad infinitum.
>Considering point 1: all semantic observations of a creation as having emergent intelligence are null void.

File: quote-the-good-man-though(...).jpg (74 KB, 850x400)

74 KB JPG

>>25001283
Hey, he has a proof, it's just too complex to share.

>>25001457
Aquinas is good but scotus is better, As a Muslim he is one of my favourite Christian thinkers

>>25001454
The man doesn't know Chinese.
The book doesn't know Chinese.
But the room outputs perfectly coherent Chinese.
This is because the room (man + book), together, know Chinese.

That the individual components of the whole do not know Chinese is irrelevant.

Taking it a step further, neither the room nor consciousness actually have separate parts. Separating the bits that make up the "man" from the bits that make up the "book" is arbitrary. Equally arbitrary is separating the bits that make up "software" from "data", or "experience/self" from "memory".


>so you agree with me and disagree with the chinese room
Who are (you)? If you are OP and I'm reading this right, yeah pretty much.

But I responded to this post >>25000980 because it seems to conflict with mine:
>without even having a self in the first hand
>the vaxx fiasco demonstrated people like that are like 85% of whole adult population.
I agree that you can't tell the difference between a Chinese room and a "real person", but that's because I believe there is no difference, not because of solipsism, or because of p-zombies. There is no "self" separate from consciousness that you can "not have".

There are no functional people walking around without a "self", just like there aren't functional cars driving around without a "motor".

>>25001544
NTA (>>25001461) but I disagree with one point. Regardless of whether or not separation per se is illusory, it is still observably evident. Thusly, an aspect of the whole can still be defined as a novel detail. So long as this is true, the Chinese Room is both right and wrong.

>>25001544
>There are no functional people walking around without a "self", just like there aren't functional cars driving around without a "motor".
You still don't have an answer to solipsism just because you brushed it aside off-hand.

>>25001562
The term solipsism is based on the false premise that consciousness is an emergent property of life, and upon the definition of consciousness as a patterned construct of complex systems operating within a specific form, rather than as being or observation alone. NTA.

>>25001544
>But the room outputs perfectly coherent Chinese.
if the room just output answers that happened to be correct, as in it just had a list of answers and gave them out one after the other, would it know chinese?
>If you are OP and I'm reading this right, yeah pretty much.
i'm not OP
>There is no "self" separate from consciousness that you can "not have".
ok, i get that. it's like that sartre thing. irreducability
>There are no functional people walking around without a "self", just like there aren't functional cars driving around without a "motor".
surely there could be a human who isn't conscious who just does everything correctly as a coincidence
>there aren't functional cars driving around without a "motor".
that's impossible due to reality. a person could conceivably do everything right despite being insane and not understanding what the appropriate response to an input is

>>24999576
Oh my fucking science! A textbook said I am not conscious, therefore I am not!

Get bent.

>>25001567
>The term solipsism is based on the false premise that consciousness is an emergent property of life
No idea where you got this from. Solipsism just means you cannot objectively verify other subjectively experienced minds exist beside your own, it doesn't have anything to do with theories of "emergence".

>>25001568
What you're arguing is purely hypothetical and not typically possible based on the surrounding circumstances of nature and existing as a complex organism within a social system. The Chinese Room paradox works better because it's a secluded hypothetical scenario. What you propose is virtually impossible.

>>25001603
Yes it does, as it posits that only self exists (within the name). If there is any conceptual definition of separation, then: it becomes a theory in bad faith, and is rooted in the same falsities of materialism and dualism it aims to dismiss. One cannot separate self from other without first assuming other is not self. To posit that only self exists and all else is illusory implies that one is the only material emergent property of reality.

>>25001603
>>25001610
TL;DR - Solipsism isn't only hypocritical, but self-contradictory as well.

>>25001607
>What you're arguing is purely hypothetical and not typically possible based on the surrounding circumstances of nature
idk i'm pretty sure people have bluffed their way through conversations they weren't listening to before

>>25001623
That's a controlled scenario and easily plausible. I'm not an advanced mathematician, but my intuition tells me there is a next to zero chance that someone could breeze through life doing everything correctly while being informed of either nothing or the opposite of the correct assumption.

>>25001631
kierkegaard would disagree

>>25001635
Well Kirkegaard can kiss my lily white ass. I don't care what he thinks.

>>25001643
not very philosophical of you

>>25001646
Opinions aren't equal. Expression alone does not justify my taking it into account. Most especially if I disagree with the premise.

>>25001555
>Regardless of whether or not separation per se is illusory, it is still observably evident.
How so?

>>25001562
Both solipsists and non solipsists take solipsism to be false as an axiom. They only disagree intellectually on the truth of the claim, not in action.

Without accepting this axiom, nothing can be argued about. It is impossible to make a truthful argument about anything other than the self if you act as if solipsism is true, because knowledge outside the self is fundamentally impossible.

Yet, we are having this argument about things outside the self. So you must have already accepted this axiom.
>no I don't!!
you aren't real get out of my head

>>25001568
The principle issue here is where you draw the line between "knowing" and "not knowing". Do you know how to play chess if you just follow one logical flowchart every single time? Does it matter if you win? If you had a logical system that covered every possible move, would that constitute knowing how to play chess? Do you not know chess if you don't know every single possible move? If it's between those two extremes, how big does your flowchart have to be to know chess? Do you even know that one flowchart?
For me, and for many people, the answers are "no, no, yes, no, I don't know, yes".

But again, this is all basically arbitrary. How are you insane if you are perfectly coherent and can respond normally to all stimuli?

>>25001692
>I only believe in myself. You don't exist.
>"Then how do you observe me?"
>You are illusory.
>"If I am illusory, then I am observable, Therefore I exist. I also experience."
>Well, okay you do exist, but you're me.
>"Then you believe everything is one, therefore all exists."
>No, only I exist.
>"If only you exist, you could not observe illusory separation."
>But you're me.
>"Then you acknowledge that I am of substance, and that your ego is false. You believe there is a greater Mind at the basis of all of this."
>No, I just believe in me.
I'm gonna start calling solipsism "Retard's Angst". This is just a contradictory and poor description of neo-pythagoreanism. No, I don't care how you frame it. You either acknowledge fullness or you acknowledge nothing. If you acknowledge fullness, you acknowledge that your ego is a limitation and thus yet another illusory separation. Thus, solipsism is impossible.

>>25001692
>Do you know how to play chess if you just follow one logical flowchart every single time?
that is literally how chess is played. you memorise openings and variations of those openings
>How are you insane if you are perfectly coherent and can respond normally to all stimuli?
because you don't actually understand that you're being coherent or that you're responding normally

>>25001757
>because you don't actually understand that you're being coherent or that you're responding normally
that's an impossible scenario outside of purely hypothetical means.

>>25001765
it's not purely hypothetical. insane people can absolutely bluff their way through one or two conversations

>>25001766
Shift the goalposts again, anon. One more time. I want to have the same conversation over and over for all eternity. Just keep reframing your argument and finding new ways to repeat yourself. We already discussed this earlier.

>>25001771
i assumed you were a different guy, why did you respond to this post;
>>25001568
twice?

>>25001774
I didn't. This is an anonymous imageboard. Constantly clarifying who you are would contradict the idea of the site.

>>25001779
are you just jumping into arguments with me and getting confused when i repeat the same positions? i stopped replying to you for a reason lol

>>25001728
>I also experience
I have to take your word for that.

>>25001782
Yeah you stopped replying to me because I didn't give you a satisfactory retort in agreement to your positions. That's why I criticized you once more. You aren't seeking debate, you're seeing egoistic validation and nobody should be taking you seriously on that basis. You're not going to get different results by repeating yourself ad nauseam. I'm not the only one who understands what's wrong with your arguments.

>>25001789
My word? I thought I don't exist! How do you observe my word without my existence? Am I part of you, then? Then prove to me you are omnipresent and omniscient, or you must concede to your own illusory nature. Otherwise this all delves into wholly delusional tranny logic.
>I FEEL like God, so I AM God. NO you can't ask me to prove it.

>>25001798
i'm only trying to convince and argue with reasonable people, not unreasonable ones. i'm not going to argue with someone who i think is unreasonable

>>25001808
I am perfectly reasonable, and if your stance were strong enough: you would easily be able to argue against my position. I suppose I accept your concession. Kek

>>25001326
I don't care, we know that it is possible

>>25001809
you're not reasonable lmao, you just argue a lot using unreasonable arguments lol

>>25001810
You cannot prove matter is separate from mind without first dishonesty defining mind as a rigid set of systems of memorization (which it is not).

>>25001813
Then outlining what exactly is wrong with my arguments should be no problem. I humbly accept a second concession.

File: s-l1200.png (195 KB, 513x837)

195 KB PNG

>>25001394
No one can truly hate God, who is Goodness itself. Even Eve is tempted by Satan with the promise of becoming like God. Even Satan, in his commitment to self-assertion, strives to he like God, only in a malformed and corrupted way. Milton's Satan must declare: "evil, be thou my good," not "evil, be evil *for me*."

Rather, the athiest is afflicted by sin and error (which is ultimately itself sin, separation from God).

>>25001821
nigga;
>>25001648

>>24998458
>I can understand thing to the level I understand thing
>I can't know if I understand thing completely because that would require knowing what I do not know
>I have an understanding of thing and believe it is a complete understanding of thing
You're #3

>>25001824
Define "separation from God" in terms of our existence, which is within and of said God. I agree with the rest of the post.

>>25001826
Truly, you make me blush. I do accept this third concession.

>>25001835
my concession that you're an unreasonable philistine? ok

>>25001842
Wanna make it five?

>>25001610
>Yes it does, as it posits that only self exists (within the name).
Which is empirically verifiable insofar the individual in question is concerned, but is not reproducible in terms of contemplating the existence of other existing minds.
>If there is any conceptual definition of separation, then: it becomes a theory in bad faith, and is rooted in the same falsities of materialism and dualism it aims to dismiss.
You're mistaking the order of induction here: Materialism/dualism *makes* solipsism an absurdly high probability of being true, not the other way around.
>To posit that only self exists and all else is illusory implies that one is the only material emergent property of reality.
That's an extremely disingenuous argument, I hope you realize. Solipsism doesn't have to be true just because one *makes* the assumption that other entities do not exist from his or her perspective, only that the impossibility of verifying subjective self-experiencing minds remains a rule. Again, you haven't actually dismissed the possibility, it just doesn't neatly align with your heuristics.
>One cannot separate self from other without first assuming other is not self.
Solipsism assumes everything is an extension of self. As a monism, materialism is in no way exempt from this.
>To posit that only self exists and all else is illusory implies that one is the only material emergent property of reality.
Then I can agree that solipsism expresses an understanding of self based on emergence, but to the extent that the universe is its extension instead. But so what?
>>25001614
>Solipsism isn't only hypocritical
Irrelevant.
>>25001692
>Both solipsists and non solipsists take solipsism to be false as an axiom.
I don't agree with this.
>They only disagree intellectually on the truth of the claim, not in action.
You don't actually understand the arguments behind solipsism if you think it has anything to do with your ability to communicate ideas between you and other people.
>Without accepting this axiom, nothing can be argued about.
Again, a false, arbitrary presumption.
>It is impossible to make a truthful argument about anything other than the self if you act as if solipsism is true, because knowledge outside the self is fundamentally impossible.
That's why I think most materialism (especially eliminative materialism) is false, because in trying to immunize itself to all dangers (i.e. the hard problem of consciousness and categorical errors), it only further cements the idea we can't know nuttin' about anything and everything. Solipsism isn't merely a set of beliefs you withhold, it's the final regression into primitive barbarism.
>Yet, we are having this argument about things outside the self. So you must have already accepted this axiom.
Define "outside the self".

>>25000601
Every muslim I know eats bacon cheeseburgers.

>>25001849
see
>>25001728

>>25001849
If only your individual ego existed: you would not be able to envision or experience anything which you were unaware of. Nothing would be observed. Otherwise you believe even you don't exist, which is a contradiction.

>>25001870
>Otherwise you believe even you don't exist
>inb4 "nuh uh"
Yes, it does. You either believe all is inseparable, ONLY you exist and nothing else, or materialism. Literally anything else is illogical tranny delusion.

>>25001805
>How do you observe my word without my existence?
Your existence is not in question, your internal experience which is not accessible to me is.

>>25001914
>PROVE YOU EXIST
no u

>>25001917
That we're both in the same position from our perspective is the exact point retard.

>>25001918
I’m in my perspective. You aren’t in a perspective.

>>25001850
No they don't, even muslims who are fasiq and munafiq will not touch pork. Even sodomite ones

>>25001914
Ah, so option 4 it is: illogical and contradictory tranny delusion

>>25001925
If that statement means anything you're saying you're a solipsist.
>>25001963
You have no grasp on logic.

>>24998069
John Searle opens the hood of his new car, then complains to the car dealer "What did you sell me??? This cannot be a car, there is no engine in here, only a collection of pistons gears and shafts!"

>>25002046
Obviously. My car is the only car with an engine.

>>25002016
Aaaand that's five!

File: 52ceab0c72af439fb38b89a25(...).jpg (25 KB, 400x265)

25 KB JPG

>>25001833
Evil is a privation. So the wicked are separated from God to the extent that they suffer privation—of the virtues, which are a participation in divine love (Saint Maximos the Confessor), and of knowledge, which is the mind's conformity to being. To slide towards privation is to become less fully unified (the state of Saint Paul in Romans 7, or Plato's "civil war in the soul"), less fully free and self-determining (more a bundle of waring drives and external causes), and so less anything at all. This is why in the Apology Socrates' parting request the the Athenians is that they chastise his sons if they do wrong so that "they will not think they are something when they are truly nothing." "The wicked man, though he reigns, is a slave, and what is worse, a slave to as many masters as he has vices" (Saint Augustine, City of God). Thus, while all that exists participates in the divine energies to some extent, the wicked participate less and so are separated from God, and from the path to theosis. "God became man that man might become God" (Saint Athanasius, On the Incarnation) but this union is blocked by sin. Man is also separated from God in respect to his will when his will is focused on lesser goods, creatures, rather than the Creator.

>>25002233
You even type like a retard, like you're trying to give the post the most retarded voice possible.

>>25002290
that's you actually
you're doing that

>>25000559
Science is a tool, but it doesn't have anything to do with purpose or teleology. How you apply it is up to your value system. Metaphysical materialism isn't science, it's a worldview based on assumptions that have nothing to do with science or anything observable. The fact that people masquerade that as science, using sophistry, equivocation and other fallacies, is essentially what leads to wokeism. It's what leads to political correctness. This is where we find the world at today. Political correctness and/or woke ideology are not science, it only pretends to be. Metaphysical materialism isn't science. Even if those with materialist or atheist beliefs claim it to be. Science itself is simply a tool. The values of atheism and metaphysical materialism aren't proven by science either. It's just that sophists have tried a million ways to make you think it does, because they're intellectually bankrupt.

>>25000592
This isn't true though. Just Catholicism alone had added like 500,000,000 people since 2000. This dwarfs growth in athiesm, which is tiny. Even in the West, it's only "non-affiliated" that is growing quickly, not athiests. But this trend is obviously fairly limited since it is overwhelmingly with natives. The ones who adopt it have very few kids, like .88 fertility rates. The growth in the population is overwhelmingly from migrants (who are overwhelmingly religious, and their kids tend to be too) and religious natives. White American women who are highly religious have higher fertility rates than India or Libya. Urban secularites have extinction level reproduction rates.

>>25000603
>Islam is declining in the West.
Bro, have you been to a major European city lately? If they are declining, why have they gone from like 1:20 to 1:8 of the population in the last two decades? Why are they a plurality in big cities?

This is an absurd statement. They're actually getting more radicalized. Even the libs who run the EU who are scared to say anything about Islam have released reports on this because it's too potent to ignore. You're in an alternate reality.

>>25002387
It's also historically illiterate. The high point of secularism in Muslim nations were largely 40+ years ago now. Iran overthrew their secular state and put an Islamic theocracy in place. Syria had two Islamist revolts and the Islamists won the second. Egypt voted for Islamists when they got their chance to vote and only a coup toppled it. Hamas still rules their rubble heap. After Qaddafi? Islamists. Pakistan had become increasingly Islamist. Islamists won in Afghanistan. Iraq is significantly more Islamist than under Saddam. The Gulf States quelled revolt by giving Islamists authority. Yemen? Islamist. Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, radical Islam has steamrolled secularism as a political force almost everywhere. Every Turkey has become more Islamist than it was.

>>24998069
Holy Ghost in the Machine
Digital Glossolalia

>>25002425
Even now you have to use the "Chinese Box" to look up what 'Glossolalia' means.
None of you people think how many translations you use in a day to communicate with one another. Small miracles that would drive you insane if you noticed them.

>>25002401
Still lost influence since ISIS. Iranians are getting boners about having a secular monarchy again.

>>25001136
The bigism here is really a modernized form (i.e. under modern paradigms) of the Eleatic school of Parmenides, the smallism is the atomism of Democritus. Both are just as irrational as they ever were, because they are ontological assertions based on the highly fallible intuitions of people, but without any solid epistemic basis. These views are essentially mystical, because they fail to square with what is actually observed, not only empirically but in other respects too. In the case of atomists in particular, the apparent conclusions drawn (of materialism) contradict the assumptions, which were ultimately based on intuition rather than anything empirical in the first place. Though at some points in scientific history, one could say, there might have been better reasons to interpret the existing data that way. For a while there, long before quantum theory, everyone was very mechanistic in their thinking due to the influence of Newton's findings, which really did shake a lot of people up and made them into determinists. So under the classical model you get things like Laplace's demon. That's not possible at all as we know now due to the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle is empirically true.

Having said that, I personally think that empirical facts, which can be abstracted by scientific induction from sense data, really only get you so far. They leave you at a crossroads of infinite possibilities, and pure empiricism leaves you there without a compass, and without a basis for how you got there in the first place. I think it's key to recognize that we only induce the empirical information we even do have on the basis of intuition. But at the same time, pure intuition without any empirical grounding is utterly baseless ultimately, leading a person to what I would describe as mysticism in the purely negative sense. To obtain real knowledge of unchanging truths, intuition actually can't be completely rejected. Rather it should be subjected to Occam's razor instead. When you use Occam's razor to answer the fundamental question of why there is, empirically speaking, "something instead of nothing," you then get theism as defined in contrast to either materialism or monism/idealism. This is the cosmology that will explain that observation. As I see it, you get to that conclusion only with the true and correct epistemological approach first. By contrast, existence monism is eliminated because pluralism is observed; and, without the former, priority monism (whether by emanations or otherwise) is Occam razed as well. Materialism also fails because objects in the physical universe are empirically imposed upon to obey the laws governing matter and energy, so therefore something supernatural has to be causally prior to even impose those limitations in the first place. Yet empirical-based materialism, at least, implicitly rejects the supernatural. Other kinds of materialism (i.e. "the Multiverse") are Occam razed, nor are they observed.

>>25002387
Based Muslims actually putting in the work and terrifying Liberals

>>25002275
I dismiss all notions of dualism as unserious and from arrogance. Sorry, anon. I wish you the best in your next life.

File: quote-food-is-not-evil-bu(...).jpg (77 KB, 850x400)

77 KB JPG

>>25002676
The privation theory of evil isn't dualist. Evil is nothing.

>>24998069
We can't prove consciousness.
However, this is a fault in the concept and nature of proof. Truth needs no such thing.

>>25002387
Feminism is also surging among the muslims.

>>25001090
>can't reason his own actions
Ridiculous.
Also, the machine doesn't respond with the right output. The machine is designed to imitate a human, and a human (as you're so kindly demonstrating) is apt to spew moronic drivel.
>>25001322
Idk, I think the limitation of only allowing the user to observe it through text is actually a big enough blinder that it should be able to pull it off. I mean, we're already pretty much there with LLMs. They certainly fool plenty of people.
>>25001394
>>25001824
God is soft and sexy, I couldn't possibly hate her. I do hate people's made up gods though. They're usually designed to specifically cater to their shitty social biases.
>>25002380
>>25002387
>religidiots try not to force their shitty beliefs into discussions that have fuckall to do with it challenge (IMPOSSIBLE (100% FAIL)
>if the room just output answers that happened to be correct,
Not correct - passably human. You're back to arguing for P-zombies here. The better question is "would it appear to know Chinese", and the answer is in the supposition.
>>25002926
Based
Just keep in mind that Descartes' demon (we're likely glueless about truth)

>>25001322
exactly
A perfect simulacrum can only be the thing itself.

>>25003035
>The machine is designed to imitate a human
the machine is designed to imitate a computer you retard, that's the point of the "thought experiment"
>Also, the machine doesn't respond with the right output.
the entire premise of the chinese room is the machine gives output that makes it seem like it understands chinese

you're the real chinese room here btw lol, no ability to grasp what people are actually saying

>>25003083
the entire point of the chinese room is asking if a computer perfectly emulating a human is conscious you fucking retard

Man /lit/ has really fallen huh. This is a simple thought experiment that every undergrad should be expected to immediately understand.

If understanding can be described algorithmically -- as the computational theory of the mind necessarily implies -- then anybody following an AI algorithm by hand to translate Chinese letters can be said to 'understand' Chinese. However it's obvious that doing so is not equivalent to understanding Chinese. Rather, it's a meaningless manipulation of symbols according various mathematical rules, with no understanding present.

Literally the ONLY objection computationalists have to this is: 'if you do it fast enough, then you do understand it'. Ie if I follow the AI algorithm to translate Chinese "fast enough" then I understand Chinese. But this is obviously bullshit, because my understanding of a language is qualitatively different than the performance of linear algebra or whatever: it has to do with non-algorithmic, non-mathematical concepts like meaning.

>>25003087
it is modeling A COMPUTER. it is not modeling A PERSON.
>a computer perfectly emulating a human
no it is giving out output that resembles the output of a human. its interior has absolutely no resemblance to a human mind

>>25002932
Its really not, we keep our women in line

>>25003103
>it's a technical and inaccurate analogy used to argue that one trivial position is superior to another trivial position in a trivial argument about computers
yeah we all knew that

>>25003103
>But this is obviously bullshit
source: trust me bro

>>25003144
>trivial
It's not trivial when the dogma of physicalism (which is dumber than anything the medieval scholastics ever enforced) is widely prevalent in certain philosophical circles. It knocks down the one "argument" physicalists have -- pointing to the operations of a computer and saying "see? it's analogically similar to us in some ways so we're just computers".

>>25000594
Islam is shrinking among Islamic immigrants in Europe. Mosques are literally closing because by the 3rd generation they have become effectively atheist with onlu being culturally Muslim (meaning they never pray or even know the Quran but symbolically don't eat pork while drinking, doing drugs and having sex before marriage)

>>25003176
>physicalism
>only things that exist are real
makes sense to me

>>25003200
You don't understand. There are things that aren't observable in any way, direct or indirect, but still exist. It is necessarily true by definition, obviously.

>>25003204
>There are things that aren't observable in any way, direct or indirect, but still exist
that sounds more like you objecting to empircism rather than physicalism

>>25003200
Lmao. This is embarrassing. Try to construct an argument.
>>25003204
Nonphysical things are observable. Consciousness (observation itself) is non-physical. Mathematical and logical laws are non-physical. Emotions are non-physical.

>>25003179
Lmao have you been here this is not the case

>>25003217
>Lmao. This is embarrassing. Try to construct an argument.
you're a dimwit who doesn't understand basic words
>Consciousness (observation itself) is non-physical.
that's a word referring to a pattern of electrical impulses in a brain
>Mathematical and logical laws are non-physical.
that's a word referring to a pattern of movement applied to physical objects
>Emotions are non-physical.
a word referring to physical actions of someone under the influence of certain chemicals

>>25003083
>>25003127
My bad, I thought you'd be ale to pick up on fact that we're specifically talking about imitating humans (at the act of writing text), but I guess I needed to be more specific for the mental cripples in this thread.
>the entire premise of the chinese room is the machine gives output that makes it seem like it understands chinese
Nope, the entire premise if that it (the room) gives output that makes it seem like there is a human inside that understands Chinese. That is the only "right" response that the room can give. You are arguing against the premise while pretending not to.
If you're going to be a pedant, at least be consistent.

>>25003226
>I thought you'd be ale to pick up on fact that we're specifically talking about imitating humans (at the act of writing text), but I guess I needed to be more specific for the mental cripples in this thread.
the chinese room is not about imitating human behaviour, it is about imitating human consciousness and understanding. of course you can't grasp the difference
>Nope, the entire premise if that it (the room) gives output that makes it seem like there is a human inside that understands Chinese.
then that's not an argument about whether a computer can understand chinese, is it. it's about whether a CPU within a computer (separate from memory and knowledge) can understand chinese. i've already gone over that ITT and how that's not how the chinese room is normally understood and how if that is how it's meant to be understood then it's trivial and stupid

File: 1752577257750691.png (150 KB, 372x447)

150 KB PNG

>>25003246
>CPU within a computer (separate from memory and knowledge
that's not how a fucking computer works

>>25003255
whatever, i don't care. the point is a human within a chinese room is obviously not equivalent to a computer-the whole chinese room is

Posts should have an IQ number attached to them, so I don't waste time replying to retards.

>>25003270
>dumbass calls everyone else dumbasses because he can't understand simple concepts
good, fuck off

>retard immediately gets assblasted
Don't reply to me.

>>25003278
classic projection from someone who doesn't even understand what the chinese room is

>>25003226
>Nope, the entire premise if that it (the room) gives output that makes it seem like there is a human inside that understands Chinese.
NTA but no:

>The whole point of the original example was to argue that such symbol manipulation by itself couldn't be sufficient for understanding Chinese in any literal sense because the man could write "squoggle squoggle" after "squiggle squiggle" without understanding anything in Chinese
>My response to the systems theory is quite simple: let the individual internalize all of these elements of the system. He memorizes the rules in the ledger and the data banks of Chinese symbols, and he does all the calculations in his head. The individual then incorporates the entire system. There isn't anything at all to the system that he does not encompass. We can even get rid of the room and suppose he works outdoors. All the same, he understands nothing of the Chinese, and a fortiori neither does the system, because there isn't anything in the system that isn't in him. If he doesn't understand, then there is no way the system could understand because the system is just a part of him

Searle, John. R. (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): p. 421-422

>>25003246
>it's about whether a CPU within a computer (separate from memory and knowledge) can understand chinese
That's also wrong. Searle was autisitc about any machine that does automatic symbol manipulation, regardless of it's makeup, because "muh intentionality". As far as I can tell the guy never learned what "CPU" even means in his entire life.

wtf prevents both of you from just reading the actual paper in question? It's not even long.

Did another one of you get filtered by Blindsight again lmao

>>25003288
Blindsight itself is entirely about Watts himself getting filtered by actual cognitive science tho. Like, it's cool and I lked many things about it, but the guy did not understand zilch from any of the articles he cites in the appendix.

>>25003286
>My response to the systems theory is quite simple: let the individual internalize all of these elements of the system. He memorizes the rules in the ledger and the data banks of Chinese symbols, and he does all the calculations in his head. The individual then incorporates the entire system. There isn't anything at all to the system that he does not encompass. We can even get rid of the room and suppose he works outdoors.
then this system has no relation to a computer so who cares. it's like worrying about an invisible, unstoppable, unreasonable murderer who hates you. i doubt anyone has a perfect understanding of chinese anyway
>Searle was autisitc about any machine that does automatic symbol manipulation, regardless of it's makeup, because "muh intentionality". As far as I can tell the guy never learned what "CPU" even means in his entire life.
then that triggers my default reaction to the chinese room which is that it's wrong instead of being trivial and stupid. my reaction to his reaction to the systems argument is also that it's trivial btw

>commonly discussed thought experiment is talking about X?
>NO!!! ITS Y!!!! ITS Y ITS Y ITS Y!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE ALL WRONG!!!!!!!
What causes this phenomenon

>>25003322
no idea which posts this could be referring to

>>25003221
>you're a dimwit who doesn't understand basic words
No, you just defined 'physicalism' as 'the belief that only things that exist are real' which is something nobody disagrees with and is not the definition of physicalism.
>that's a word referring to a pattern of electrical impulses in a brain
No it's not. It's a word referring to qualitative experience which seems to be causally related to but is ontologically entirely different from electrical impulses in the brain. I can scan your brain to see the electrical impulses therein; I can never access your consciousness and see what it's like for you to smell a coffee, or to be listening to Mozart at this particular point in time.
>that's a word referring to a pattern of movement applied to physical objects
The mathematical laws governing the physical world are abstract, discoverable a-priori, and non-physical. That is why mathematical laws bear the quality of epistemic necessity, which absolutely cannot be derived through empirical observation, see Hume.
>a word referring to physical actions of someone under the influence of certain chemicals
Emotions are not 'physical actions', they are internal states, you soulless ghoul. That is why people can lie about their emotions.

>>25003286
>>Nope, the entire premise if that it (the room) gives output that makes it seem like there is a human inside that understands Chinese.
NTA but yes:

>Suppose also that after a while I get so good at following the instructions for manipulating the Chinese symbols and the programmers get so good at writing the programs that from the external point of view—that is, from tile point of view of somebody outside the room in which I am locked—my answers to the questions are absolutely indistinguishable from those of native Chinese speakers. Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don’t speak a word of Chinese.

File: france-prayers.jpg (11 KB, 300x197)

11 KB JPG

>>25003179
You live in an alternate reality.

>>25003331
>I can scan your brain to see the electrical impulses therein; I can never access your consciousness and see what it's like for you to smell a coffee, or to be listening to Mozart at this particular point in time.
Just like, before a few hundred years ago, you could never capture a photograph or record audio. Direct transference of brain states is a technological problem. You are assuming that the inherent nature of experience is different than literally everything else for no reason.