[HN Gopher] Why philosophers should care about computational com... ___________________________________________________________________ Why philosophers should care about computational complexity (2011) Author : lordleft Score : 101 points Date : 2021-11-16 16:31 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arxiv.org) (TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org) | dang wrote: | Past threads: | | _Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity | (2011) [pdf]_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17573142 - | July 2018 (22 comments) | | _Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity | (2011) [pdf]_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913825 - | June 2016 (54 comments) | | _Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity | [pdf]_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9061744 - Feb 2015 | (43 comments) | | _Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2897277 - Aug 2011 (10 | comments) | | _Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2861825 - Aug 2011 (36 | comments) | photochemsyn wrote: | Question: "How many computable numbers could a computer compute | if a computer could compute all computable numbers?" | | Woodchucks are curious about this. | sumtechguy wrote: | You owe the oracle 32GB of RAM. His game rig is low on memory | and hungry. | jazzyjackson wrote: | I wanted to incorporate this question with an Arduino lesson | plan based around key breaking, basically demonstrating that | 10,000 combinations might seem like a lot when you're doing it | by hand, but a computer can brute force it in no time, so how | big does a number have to be before it starts taking serious | time for a computer to count to it? | | That's when I learned compilers will look at your for loops and | just predict the result of incrementing a number a million | times and skip to the end condition. Was quite a shock to find | out the program I write is not the program that runs. I think I | added something simple to the loop, like flipping a bit on a | digital output to force the loop to actually run. | kamray23 wrote: | -O0 turns off optimizations on most reasonable C compilers. | lordnacho wrote: | Stick random() in there somewhere for each iteration, print | it out? Then the optimizer won't be able to just jump to the | end. | jazzyjackson wrote: | Actually yes I think that was what we went with, instead of | counting from 0 to MAX_INTEGER we generated random numbers | that many times, brute forced integer "keys" just fine. | beepbooptheory wrote: | This is only redeeming to me really because generally its the | philosophers that are presumptuous enough to tell other fields | what they should do or think. Nice to see the tables turned on | them! | at_a_remove wrote: | Goodness yes. When I was in physics, there were a lot of these | philosophers who had some kind of real _problem_ with (special) | relativity, like it had swerved and driven over their dog on | purpose. I 'm not talking about the spackling of idiots who | were under the impression that Michelson-Morley was performed | precisely once, but folks who just found it antithetical to | their personal outlooks, aside from the space opera types whose | dreams are cruelly crushed underfoot by _c_ (no exotic matter | has yet called Lazarus forth from his tomb). Normally, one | could dispel them with some holy water and a copy of Dr. Will | 's _Was Einstein Right?_ but some had a tenacity to them which | had long transformed from a virtue to a vice. | [deleted] | ChrisSD wrote: | It's funny because of the number of physicists who loudly | proclaim philosophy is either dead or at least useless (while | also extolling the virtues of their own philosophy of | science, with bonus points for mangling Popper). | quantum_mcts wrote: | Also physicist. My beef is more with philosophy-of-science | folks in particular. They think that we, physicists, really | need them and their insights about how to do physics | properly. For example they really like this meme: | | reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/gjz24v | | Which is totally dishonest. (I tried to counter that with | this https://imgur.com/a/zwDhfxJ , but that's not memey | enough.) | bangkoksbest wrote: | It's not a coincidence that the left side (more positive to | philosophy) and Born (whose quotes are more neutral) are | also continental European, while the three critical | examples (can add in Krauss, Hawking, and many others) come | from Anglo-Americans. There's too often a pettiness in the | latter (to an extent, also in your post) in which what look | like fairly limited and contemporaneous gripes about | academics in another field is given the trappings of some | historically unbound and universal insight. | | There's no inherent tension between science and philosophy; | even Meermin's "shut up and calculate" is a philosophical | position (instrumentalism), to say nothing of the | philosophical, scientific and mathematical contributions of | e.g. Poincare, Helmholtz, Mach, Duhem, Peirce, Leibniz, Von | Neumann, Jaynes etc. Even modern Anglo-American physicists | contribute to and draw a lot from philosophy, e.g. Wheeler | and Paul Anderson. | bakuninsbart wrote: | That's not my experience at all, rather I see a lot of | philosophers giving _good_ pointers where their field borders | on others, and then being shot down or ignored. I 'd actually | be interested in an example of this, as I don't think I've | encountered it so far, although I'm admittedly not that engaged | either. | | By far the worst offenders of presumptuousness must be old | physicists though, followed by old computer scientists. | Thinking of Michio Kaku talk about philosophy still makes me | physically cringe. | btilly wrote: | Can you provide examples of your "good pointers"? | | My experience is that the feedback provided by philosophers | sounds good to the philosophers, but is actually useless to | practitioners. And in technical subjects, like math, computer | science and physics, it is important to develop a really good | BS filter. | | That said, I am also sympathetic to | http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html, so must admit some | hostility to the current practice of philosophy. | voidhorse wrote: | I think there's an inherent tension between what | philosophers are trying to do and what practitioners in | specific fields are trying to do that leads to the bad | blood. | | If you're a philosopher, you're generally trying to look at | things from a general enough perspective that you might | argue for a radical shift in the way we do things and call | out the assumptions that are otherwise taken as axioms of | the field--the water we swim around in. | | If you're a practitioner, you're focused on swimming. Core | axioms and prevailing theory are your presuppositions-- | you're just focused on getting things done within the | confines of the prevailing theory/framework, perhaps | nudging it every so often in particular directions based on | new discoveries--its quite rare that a working scientist | sparks an actual theoretic revision and becomes the next | Einstein (see thomas Kuhn). | | So yes, philosophers are totally useless when it comes to | getting practical stuff done because that's generally not | the space they are attempting to help with or illuminate. | iworshipfaangs2 wrote: | > generally its the philosophers that are presumptuous enough | to tell other fields what they should do or think | | I'm sorry but in my experience, this is not at all a one-way | street. It is very common for me to hear engineers and other | STEM-types to complain about modern art or about the supposedly | obscurantist, sophistic style of various disciplines of the | liberal arts. However, these complaints rarely come from | Engineers who take an active interest in the fields they | criticize. | | Admittedly I'm mainly speaking about general people I work with | or whom I (sadly often) encounter on the internet. But there | are some eminent names who are just as guilty. In addition to | Kaku, as bakuninsbart mentioned, I could also bring up, off the | top of my head, Stephen "philosophy is dead" Hawking and | Richard "Shakespeare would have been better if he were | educated" Dawkins. | | I think I could come up with many more examples if I started | looking. On the other hand, we fortunately also have people | like Murray Gell-Man, who has gotten us to quote from the most | experimental book in all of English-language literature every | time we talk about elementary sub-atomic particles. | a9h74j wrote: | Based upon minimal, but seemingly enough observation, I'd add | Kraus to the list of philistines. | normac2 wrote: | > supposedly obscurantist, sophistic style of various | disciplines of the liberal arts. | | Would you say there is absolutely no kernel of truth to this? | Check out, say, the abstract to this paper [1]. Is there | nothing obscurantist about it? If you acknowledge that it's | obscurantist to some degree, would you say that it's rare and | I just cherry-picked a bad one? | | I'm a STEM person, and I have trouble understanding why some | people find this stuff to be just reasonable academic work | with nothing dysfunctional, pedantic or sophistic about the | writing style. | | It just seems so extremely obvious to me, that it makes me | wonder if the people into this stuff simply have nervous | systems that are wired a bit differently, and I'm falling | prey to the typical mind fallacy. It's hard to believe that | if I studied this stuff deeply enough and with an open mind, | it would no longer seem obscure. | | [1] https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3193887/ | voidhorse wrote: | While one could argue that the abstract you linked is not | well written, I do not think it's obscurantist by any | means. It's a dissertation, so it's not surprising they are | using the jargon of the field and citing important works. | | All academic literature is specialist literature. If you | aren't trained in the field you likely won't understand it. | It's totally reasonable to me that a STEM person would have | no idea what this abstract is saying just as a Humanities | person probably couldn't make heads or tails of the | abstract of a dissertation on category theory or on a | particular branch of computer science. | | I find it funny that STEM folks always go after humanities | academics for being obtuse when its just a matter of the | pot calling the kettle black--dense STEM research and | theory uses language that'd be considered equally obtuse to | the untrained reader. | normac2 wrote: | To me, it goes beyond being hard to read, and I take it | as obscurantist in the strictest sense of someone going | out of their way to be hard to understand. | | I have a theory that most STEM people simply don't think | like most humanities people, literally at a neurological | level. (I edited my post to add some thoughts around | that, possibly after you replied.) | | STEM work rarely comes off that way to me. The only time | it looks to me like the person is going out of their way | to be obtuse and technical, is some higher math stuff | (which is a known thing and acknowledged even by some | mathematicians). This includes the stuff from entirely | different parts of STEM that I don't understand at all. | voidhorse wrote: | That's fair. I would agree there is a certain "big words | == more intellectual == smarter" or "more difficult == | smarter" fallacy that arises somewhat frequently in | contemporary humanities papers. | | I think part of it might originate from the fact that the | abstractions used for taking about things in the | humanities aren't fixed as well as they are in science. | Take the abstract in question for example--the writer | uses the palimpsest as a sort of visual analogue and | abstraction to try to describe interactions and | relationships between texts/narratives--while it's not an | absurd metaphor, it's difficult to grok, because there is | no real standardized metaphor for describing this set of | relationships. You could argue the object of study isn't | as well defined as it is in the sciences where we have | fairly standardized abstractions like "waveform" etc. | that make it a lost easier to talk about things clearly. | mensetmanusman wrote: | The Chinese Room has been on my mind lately after recently | learning about it: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room | | Highly recommend trying to grasp the argument, because in a sense | it connects complexity to 'time to compute'. If it takes a room | of robots following simple instructions a billion years to act as | an AI that reads Chinese, are those robots a collective | intelligence? Can it be scaled up to consciousness? | skulk wrote: | Why stop at a computer, why not extend the argument to a full | simulation of a human brain? What if I sat in my room for 3 | million years simulating 3 seconds of a human body including | the brain? Assuming that my simulation is faithful, who's to | say that my simulation doesn't have some form of consciousness | or subjective experience? | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | You can go even deeper: given that your simulation follows a | set of known rules from an initial state, what does actually | performing those steps even matter? | | Is the consciousness given existence because you perform | calculations on paper, or does it exist already within the | fabric of reality and you're merely exposing it? | 3np wrote: | I think a common mistake is to conflate "consciousness" | with "intelligence" or at least "thought". | | Just because we don't tend to recognize one without the | other doesn't mean they necessarily have a causative | relationship. | tshaddox wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean. Just listing the steps of an | algorithm is quite different than executing the steps of an | algorithm. As an obvious example, with an algorithm for | summing two numbers together, the difference between | listing the steps and executing them is that when you | execute them you are provided with the sum. | | I don't see any sense in which these _aren 't_ different, | unless perhaps you're introducing some separate | cosmological "Boltzmann brain"-style argument that all | possible finite results of all halting algorithms will | arise or have arisen due to random fluctuations. But in | that case you've got a whole new set of assumptions to | address. | skulk wrote: | The idea of a fundamental difference between the result | of "performed" and "un-performed" computation always | leads me to imagining the null universe, where nothing | gets computed ever but all math "exists" as we'd expect. | It begs the question, why is the universe non-null? | Allowing the mere existence of the possibility of | computation to answer that question is very comforting. | But yes, it requires approximately as much faith as any | monotheistic religion. | Der_Einzige wrote: | This is why I find it so strange that philosophers seem to by | in large accept "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think therefor I am" | as a valid proof of ontology. What if the appearance of | thought is not actually thought? | | Did philosophers not watch Blade runner? Sure Descartes | didn't - but contemporaries sure as shit do! | jean_tta wrote: | This is essentially the philosophical zombie thought | experiment: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie | cuspycode wrote: | But how do you even distinguish appearance of thought from | actual thought, objectively? Of course you can always argue | that actual thought is something that is subjectively | experienced, but that leads to solipsism, doesn't it? | Der_Einzige wrote: | Solipsism is what you get from accepting the Cogito "I | know I exist for sure, and only my own existence can be | verified by the cogito" | | To answer your question, I claim that you can't. Radical | skepticism ("we live in the universe of the evil demon"), | which is what I advocate for, means that you can't even | claim that you exist. See the works of Max Stirner for | further elaboration of the implications of this for | Philosophy. | shadowgovt wrote: | Not to downplay Descartes (his philosophy, specifically the | process he undertakes, is worth a study), but something | that the pop summaries of his writing really gloss over is | that his entire premise hinges on something he takes as | assumed true that need not be, and if it isn't, the rest | goes straight off the rails. | | Paraphrasing from memory: he pins "cogito ergo sum" on the | assumption that objective knowledge is possible. That | assumption is built atop imagining an alternative: an evil | demon has full control over his senses and feeds him | whatever it wants to (essentially, the 'Matrix | hypothesis'). His solution to this concern? "A loving God | wouldn't create a universe that banal and meaningless." | | It's only a proof if you accept the postulate that | objective reality is correlated with experience. | [deleted] | karpierz wrote: | Where does computational complexity factor into the Chinese | room? | | Whether the Chinese room responds quickly or slowly doesn't | really factor into whether the room understands Chinese. | Strilanc wrote: | The linked article discusses this. | kordlessagain wrote: | > To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes | appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be | convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking | human being. | | This is a fallacy, regardless of the language. Some comms | between conscious entities must always contain metaphoric | language, including signaling through body language. A shrug is | a metaphor for uncertainty. This is why the premise of the | Chinese Room is true (we can't build a mind in a box) but also | why conscious machines will necessarily have to have bodies. | | Anything that is conscious and can hold a (real) dialog with a | human will have emotional output tied to the body and it's | collective experience. | michaelmrose wrote: | Why couldn't you simulate the body too? | tshaddox wrote: | > Some comms between conscious entities must always contain | metaphoric language, including signaling through body | language. | | What do you mean? Humans can certainly communicate and | maintain meaningful relationships solely through writing. | achr2 wrote: | It seems to me that the argument is kind of silly. The "Chinese | Room" has failed to account for the actual processes of the | system. The 'spoken response' is only a small part of the | 'program' of a mind; the rest is the internal processes that | constitute consciousness that can infer, compare, reinforce, | and associate. Consciousness is the whole of the system, not a | functional IO. | new_guy wrote: | It's basically a red-herring (fallacious argument), the | robots/workers etc are just homunculus, and the entire thing | falls apart without them. | arketyp wrote: | Yeah, this is related to Stephen Wolfram's principle of | computational equivalence and his re-take on "the weather has a | mind of his own". Turing machines occur everywhere in nature, | emerge from the simplest rules, Wolfram demonstrates, so maybe | consciousness is everywhere too. Where to put the scope of | computing processes basically. Searle refutes it saying it's | nonsensical to contend that a concrete wall could be conscious. | I don't know, who knows. | np- wrote: | It doesn't seem particularly nonsensical to contend a | concrete wall has some form of consciousness. Concrete walls | don't spring up out of nowhere, they're built by humans who | have a need to separate things (either for good or for bad). | A single concrete wall might not seem like much, but in the | greater scope of things, the rising and falling of all | concrete walls seems to represent some sort of plane of | humanity and its consciousness. Even think of the extremely | complicated emotions evoked by different types of walls: i.e. | the Berlin Wall, the U.S.-Mexico Wall, the Great Wall, etc. I | know I'm probably reading way too much into this specific | example, but I think this could generally apply to a lot of | things. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Highly recommend trying to grasp the argument | | It's not really, IMO, all that valuable. | | > because in a sense it connects complexity to 'time to | compute'. | | No, it doesn't. It basically just rejects _by definition_ (and | then presents an illustration which is a useful support if you | accept its definition or an illustration that its definitions | are wrong if you don't) that a programmed response system that | exhibits the behavior of an actor that understands material | actually understands material, and from that rejects the idea | that brains (which produce minds, which have actual | understanding) are equivalent to programmed response systems. | [deleted] | Yajirobe wrote: | > If it takes a room of robots following simple instructions a | billion years to act as an AI that reads Chinese, are those | robots a collective intelligence? Can it be scaled up to | consciousness? | | No, because of the article you linked to. Chinese room argues | AGAINST the existence of consciousness/intelligence arising | from following symbolic instructions. | | Here is a quote I like by John Searle: | | > Computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by | themselves for consciousness. The computational model for | consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the | computational model of anything stands to the domain being | modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of | rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the | mistake of supposing that the computational model of | consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in | both cases. | hackinthebochs wrote: | Searle's argument misses the mark. A simulated rainstorm wont | leave us wet, but a simulation of a disordered state is (or | contains) a disordered state. If consciousness is a | relational property of a system, then a simulation of such a | relational property will instantiate that relational property | without qualification. The Chinese room argument can't | address this conception of consciousness. | mjburgess wrote: | The argument is against this view of consciousness. | | More intuitively: our words are things which do things in | the world. When we acquire them we do so by being embedded | in the world. When we use them we use them to change the | world. (Largely). | | If a child in a cupboard reading a textbook out-loud could | fool a chemist that the child understood chemistry, it | doesn't mean they do. In the end, you need to turn on that | bunsen burner. | | The chinese room needs to be taken super-literally: does | the person just doing a "hash-table lookup" on "the right | answers to pre-prosed questions" _actually understand_. | | To me its incredibly obvious that they do not. This does | not establish that, eg. cognition, does not involve | computational hastable-like processes. I think it does | establish that propontents of a naive computationalism have | an incredibly big challenge. | | The challenge is to specify the environment | computationally, since that is the only means by which the | computer itself can be sufficiently embedded and actually | _understand_ anything. | | The issue here is that if "computer" isnt just a trivial | property it has to include, eg., measurability, | determinism, etc. Properties that reality lacks. Reality | isnt a computer. | | Starting with the chinese room one /can/ supplement | sufficiently until we reach searle's conclusion. | hackinthebochs wrote: | > does the person just doing a "hash-table lookup" | | But this is Searle's sleight-of-hand. The question isn't | whether the person in the Chinese room understands | Chinese, but whether the system as a whole understands | Chinese. The man is analogous to the CPU in a computer, | but the CPU is embedded in a larger system and it is the | entire system that performs operations of the computer. | You can't focus on one component to the exclusion of the | rest of the system and expect to derive valid conclusions | about the system. | | >The challenge is to specify the environment | computationally | | I agree, but this presents no _in principle_ challenge to | a computational system reaching such a detailed | description of the environment. | | >The issue here is that if "computer" isnt just a trivial | property it has to include, eg., measurability, | determinism, etc. Properties that reality lacks. Reality | isnt a computer. | | I don't follow. The issues of measurability and | determinism in QM (assuming that's what you are referring | to) aren't necessarily problems at the scale of physical | systems. Computational systems can certainly make | distinctions to within some margin of error, which is | sufficient as a substrate for gathering information about | the external environment. | mjburgess wrote: | No, there's no sleight of hand. It seems you just agree | that the man doesnt understand Chinese. | | > at the scale of physical systems. | | Alas, they are. Even classical mechanics isn't | deterministic. Most systems are chaotic and require | infinite precision in measurement to be deterministic. | Since QM precludes this, most chaotic systems literally | can only be predicted over short horizons. | | Eg., there is moon in our solar system, i believe, with a | chaotic orbit. At maximum possible measurement fidelity | we can predict 20yrs. | | Consider that all the particles of our body are just | these little chaotic moons, and their aggregate chaos | dramatically dimishes this 20yr horizon. | | There is, quite literally, not enough information present | in this moment to predict the next moment. Most systems | are sufficiently chaotic in a sufficiently large number | of parameters to preclude this. This reaches all the way | up to classical scales. | | Reality isnt a computer. | burkaman wrote: | Everyone agrees that the man doesn't understand Chinese. | The sleight of hand is that Searle compares a full | computer to a component of the Chinese Room, when he | should be comparing a computer to the room as a whole. | The man in this thought experiment is analogous to an | internal component of a computer, not the whole thing. | | Put another way, Searle separates a "computer" from the | instructions it is running, but there is no such | separation. It's like separating a brain from the | electrical brain activity. It's true that a brain without | electrical activity cannot understand Chinese just like a | computer without a program cannot, but that's not a very | interesting observation. | mjburgess wrote: | A computer is just an implementation of a function (in | mathematical sense), ie., a finite set of pairs (IN, OUT) | where (IN, OUT) in {0,1}^N, {0,1}^N. Ie., its an | implementation of {010101, ...} -> {010101010, 01010...} | . | | If we all agree that the function the man performs can be | set to be whatever you wish (ie., any {input sentences} | -> {output sentences}) and we agree that the man doesnt | understand chinese... then the question arises: what is | missing? | | I dont think the "systems reply" actually deals with this | point -- it rather just "assumes it does" by "assuming | some system" to be specified. | | If using a language isnt equivalent to a finite | computable function -- what is it? | | The systems reply needs to include that the _reason_ a | reply is given is that the system is _caused_ to give the | reply by the relevant causal history / environment / | experiences. Ie., that the system says "it's sunny" | _because_ it has been acquainted with the sun, and it | observes that the day is sunny. | | This shows the "systems reply" prima facie fails: it is | no reply at all to "presume that the system can be so- | implemented so as to make the systems reply correct". You | actually need to show it can be so-implemented. No one | has done this. | | There are lots of reasons to suppose it can be done, not | least, that most things arent computable (ie., via non- | determinism, chaos, and the like). Given the environment | is chaotic, it is a profoundly open question whether | _computers_ can be built to "respond to the right | causes" and computational systems may be incapable of | doing this. | | If they cannot, then searle is right. That man, and | whatever he may be a part of, will never understand | chinese. It is insufficient to "look up the answers", | "proper causation" is required. | burkaman wrote: | What is missing is the man's ability to memorize the | function and carry it out without the book. If he could, | and the function truly produced a normal response to any | Chinese phrase in existence, then he would speak Chinese. | | Edit: He would speak Chinese, but he wouldn't understand | it. What is missing in order to understand Chinese is an | additional program that translates Chinese to English or | pictures or some abstract structure independent of | language. Humans have this, but the function in this | thought experiment is a black box, so we don't know if it | uses an intermediate representation. Thanks to | colinmhayes for pointing this out. | | Could he give a reasoned answer to "what is the weather"? | That depends on whether we include external stimuli as | part of the function input. If not, then neither a human | nor a computer could give a sensible answer beyond "I | don't know". | | I see now that your issue is really with the function - | could a function ever exist that gives responses based on | history/environment/experience. My understanding is that | such a function is the premise of the thought experiment; | it's a hypothetical we accept in order to have this | discussion. Searle claims that even if such a function | exists, the computer still doesn't truly understand. But | if that's what we're asking, my answer would be yes, as | long as history/environment/experience are inputs as | well. Of course a computer locked away in a room only | receiving questions as input can never give a real answer | to "what is the weather", just like a human in that | situation couldn't. But if we expand our Chinese Room | test to include that type of question and also allow the | room or computer to take its environment as input, then | it can give answers caused by its environment. | | > You actually need to show it can be so-implemented. No | one has done this. | | I mean, fair enough. It's fine to say "I won't believe it | until I see it", but that pretty much ends the | discussion. If we want to talk about whether something | not yet achieved is possible, then we need to be willing | to imagine things that don't exist yet. | colinmhayes wrote: | > If he could, and the function truly produced a normal | response to any Chinese phrase in existence, then he | would speak Chinese | | I don't necessarily disagree, but it's not so simple. | Just because the man speaks chinese doesn't mean he | understands it. He could have figured out the proper | output for every possible input without knowing what any | of it means. If the next person asks in English "what did | you talk about with the last person?" what would he | answer, assuming he also speaks english? Really the | question comes down to if the computer is able to write | the book by observing I guess, but even then you could | conceive of a different book with instructions on how to | write the translation book. | burkaman wrote: | You're right, I will edit my comment. Thanks for this | framing. | tshaddox wrote: | The point is that the human in the Chinese room is just | the hardware, and no one really thinks that any computer | hardware on its own understands Chinese. It would | obviously be the entire computational system that | understands Chinese. The only reason this can even appear | to be confusing is that we often casually use "computer" | to refer both to an entire computational system (your | "implementation of a function") as well as a physical | piece of hardware (like the box on the floor with a Dell | sticker on it). | hackinthebochs wrote: | >I dont think the "systems reply" actually deals with | this point | | To be clear, the point of the systems reply isn't to | demonstrate how a computational system can understand | language, it is to point out a loophole such that | computationalism avoids the main thrust of the Chinese | room. | | >If using a language isnt equivalent to a finite | computable function -- what is it? | | In the Chinese room, the man isn't an embodiment of the | computable function (algorithm). The man is simply the | computational engine of the algorithm. The embodied | algorithm includes the state of the "tape", the unbounded | stack of paper as "scratch space" used by the man in | carrying out the instructions of the algorithm. So it | remains an open question whether the finite computable | function that implements the language function must "use | language" in the relevant sense. | | What reason is there to think that it does use language | in the relevant sense? For one, a semantic view of the | dynamics of the algorithm as it processes the symbols has | predictive power for the output of the system. Such | predictive power must be explained. If we assume that the | room can _in principle_ respond meaningfully and | substantively to any meaningful Chinese input, we can go | as far as to say the room is computing over the semantic | space of the Chinese language embedded in some | environment context encoded in its dictionary. This is | because, in the limit of substantive Chinese output for | all input, there is no way to duplicate the output | without duplicating the structure, in this case semantic | structure. The algorithm, in a very straightforward | sense, is using language to determine appropriate | responses. | mannykannot wrote: | I agree that one should take Searle's argument literally, | and I doubt there are many people on either side who | suppose that the room's operator understands either the | questions being posed to the room or the answers it | delivers. The dispute is whether there is anything | significant in this assumption - and, more specifically, | whether Searle is right in supposing that if Hard AI is | possible, then it would follow that the room's operator | _must_ understand the questions, their answers, and why | they are appropriate answers. | | You may recognize that, by distinguishing between the | operator and the room, I am prefiguring the so-called | "systems reply", which is that the system as a whole is | demonstrating whatever level of understanding is manifest | here, and there is no assumption, in so supposing, that | this understanding is manifest in any single component, | _even if one of those components has the ability to | understand some things on its own._ By deliberate | construction, Searle is using the room 's operator to | mechanistically implement an algorithm, a task that does | not require knowledge of the language in which the | questions are posed (in fact, he is using the language | barrier to _prevent_ the operator answering the questions | himself.) Searle has not presented an argument for the | operator needing to do anything more, and it is obvious | that people can be trained to perform tasks they do not | have any understanding of beyond the specific actions | involved. | | Searle's attempt to refute this reply seems to show that | he cannot even conceive it fully, as that response is to | modify the scenario such that the operator memorizes the | rule book, as if where it is stored makes any difference. | | Searle's stance here seems to me to be a version of the | homunculus fallacy, supposing that our minds are | _implemented by_ (as opposed to _being_ ) a conscious | entity. | mjburgess wrote: | I think it is significant that the room, even as a | system, does not _use_ language. | | A hashtable lookup cannot be what it is to "act in the | world with words". | | When I say, "do you like what I'm wearing?" -- regardless | of what has been written in any book, at any time, I do | not want _that_ reply. | | I may want those _words_. But the reply I want is to use | _your_ judgement of taste and experiences of the world to | tell me _your opinion_. The words dont answer the | question if the _reason_ they are used is incorrect. | | A hashtable lookup can, basically, never be a reason to | use words. | | And hence the Chinese room reveals much much more than | simply a circular point. And the systems reply fails to | say much much less than it needs to. | | The systems reply needs to explain "by what system" the | system's use of language counts as a use. "by what | system" words are born of understanding, not "mere | reterival". | | To do this, you need to specify the whole world, | experience, etc. as "computational systems". And thus the | systems reply simply fails against this example. It isnt | sufficient to say "maybe" you have to say, "and this is | how!". | | And worse, the world is clearly not a computer -- as any | non-trivial definition (eg., universal turing machine) | cannot simulate properties the world has (non- | determinism, chaos, etc.). | mannykannot wrote: | In your first post in this thread you wrote "the Chinese | room needs to be taken super-literally" - a sentiment I | agreed with - but since then (starting immediately | afterwards, in fact) you seem to think that Searle is | restricting the capabilities of the room to those of a | hash table. I am pretty sure that a close reading of his | paper will fail to reveal any such restriction, and, in | fact, if it did, that would count _against_ his argument. | Similarly, nothing you say, here or elsewhere among these | replies, about the limitations of hash tables, supports | Searle 's argument (or more general arguments against | Hard AI.) | | Nor is Searle arguing that the Chinese room, if it could | be implemented, must use language (beyond the | capabilities that he does require of it, which is | answering questions from an ill-defined domain.) And as | far as I can tell, he does not require it to, as you | somewhat vaguely put it, "act in the world with words" | beyond this. | | The systems reply does not need to do anything more than | show that Searle is making some unargued-for assumptions | about what Hard AI would imply - and Searle's response to | it so completely misses the point of that reply that he | is actually helping make it clear! (For more details, see | the second paragraph of my previous post; as far as I can | tell, no argument has been raised against the points I | made there.) | | The limitations of Turing machines are similarly beside | the point. A computer, such as those involved in the | composition and delivery of this reply, is not just a | Turing machine (not even a universal one), even though it | is capable of implementing one (up to the physical limits | of memory). In particular, a computer (as opposed to a | Turing machine) can incorporate environmental inputs, | including physically-derived entropy, and can use these | in simulating physical processes. | | You are evidently fond of the phrase "[Reality/the world] | is not a computer"; that may be so, but rather more | definitively, I think, one can say that the mind _is_ an | information processor. | | I understand that it seems inconceivable to you that a | mind could be produced by a suitably-programmed computer | of any power, and I am aware that I can only offer hand- | wavy arguments for that proposition. I think you are | mistaken, however, to read Searle's Chinese Room argument | as being about, let alone supporting, the broader | intuitions you have expressed in your reply to me and to | others. Searle, who is, after all, a philosopher of | considerable stature, is well aware that you need | something more than just one's intuitions to make a | respectable argument; that alone would not pass peer | review. | 3np wrote: | > The chinese room needs to be taken super-literally: | does the person just doing a "hash-table lookup" on "the | right answers to pre-prosed questions" actually | understand. | | That's not how it's phrased. The Chinese Room needs to | pass the Turing Test with arbitrary input of Chinese | characters. So a convincing Chinese Elissa basically. | | > The issue here is that if "computer" isnt just a | trivial property it has to include, eg., measurability, | determinism, etc. Properties that reality lacks. Reality | isnt a computer. | | Reality isn't a human brain either. | | Or is it? | | Either way I don't see how that is relevant. | burkaman wrote: | > does the person just doing a "hash-table lookup" on | "the right answers to pre-prosed questions" actually | understand. | | The person doesn't, but the (person + hash-table) system | does. This is not weird - presumably whoever wrote the | hash-table did understand Chinese. The whole point of | using a room for this thought experiment is that we're no | longer talking about a person, we're talking about a | "machine" consisting of a person, a hash-table, and some | kind of input/output system. | | The hypothetical computer is the same. The CPU does not | understand Chinese, but the whole computer as a system | does, because part of that system is actual knowledge | that came from someone that understands Chinese. When | people ask if a computer is intelligent, they are not | asking about one particular component, they're asking | about the computer as a whole. Just like when you talk | about a human's knowledge and abilities, you don't ask | about particular sectors of their brain, you ask about | the person as a whole. | mensetmanusman wrote: | The person is frivolous in the Chinese room though, would | you say (robot + hash table) understands Chinese? I.e. | GTP-3 understands English... | burkaman wrote: | GPT-3 isn't there yet, but yes, a robot with the book | from the Chinese Room experiment would form a system that | understands Chinese. | | I agree that the person is frivolous, that's why it's | strange that Searle asks whether the person in his | thought experiment understands Chinese. That's | irrelevant, what matters is whether the room as a whole | does, and clearly it does. | [deleted] | colinmhayes wrote: | I'm not sure. Say the person has translations tables for | english and chinese. If the second tester asked in | English "what did you talk about with the last person?" | would the man be able to answer? Clearly the man + hash | table speaks chinese, but I don't think that's the same | as understanding it. | burkaman wrote: | That depends on the premise of this new thought | experiment. Are the program-books allowed to include side | effects of writing down records of interactions, and take | those records as input? If not, it's not a fair | comparison with a computer. If so, then yes I think the | room could be able to answer. | | Why did I have to add something, if the room already | understood Chinese before? Because we're essentially | adding a second program now and trying to share | understanding between them. The room did understand | Chinese, but that understanding will not be accessible to | a new component unless we design with that in mind. An | analogy would be asking a person "which muscles did you | use to digest that food?" Clearly some part of the human- | system knows this, because it activated the right muscles | and successfully digested the food, but the part of the | system that hears and responds to English doesn't have | access to that knowledge. We would need to redesign the | system and programs in order to share understanding | between these different parts of the system. | | I realize we were using the term "hash-table" in this | thread and what I'm talking about wouldn't be possible | with just tables, but such a simple program is not a | requirement for the thought experiment. The idea is we | just have some black box function that takes inputs and | produces outputs and we don't know how it works. | mananaysiempre wrote: | ... I'm finding it very difficult to phrase this argument | about _actually understanding_ in a way that wouldn't | also entail that chairs made of atoms (and-- | overwhelmingly--empty space) don't _actually exist_ , | they are mere simulacra of real chairs (which don't exist | anywhere). Which might be a consistent position, but I'd | instead say that it is simply a largely useless | interpretation of the word _actually_ and as good | philosophers we should search for a better one. (See also | Anderson's "More is different".) | | Or is there such a phrasing? | mjburgess wrote: | Approximately, | | You "actually understand" if in saying words, w, about a | situation, s, the reason, r, you say those words counts | as as an understanding of s. | | So if you're asked, "what is the weather today?" and a | system replies, "its sunny" -- it only understands if the | reason it replied was because its saying "sunny" had come | about because it understands sunny sitations; and | therefore has a justfiied reason on this occasion to say | that this occasion is sunny. | | If I ask a NN trained on a trillion documents, "do you | like what I'm wearing?" it cannot _answer_. It can say | the words, "yes I do!" but it cannot have a reason to | say those words. It's just a "weighted average retrievla | across a compressed dataset of a trillion documetns". | | The question isnt "on average, what -- historically -- | would a generic person reply to the question: do you like | what i'm wearing?" | | The question is if the systems _likes_ what I 'm wearing. | Its replies are only "actual replies" if it can see what | i'm wearing, has experiences/preferences for taste, has | some aesthetic judgement, has a disposition to | like/dislike -- etc. | | No ML system on the planet, in this sense, has any | understanding whatsoever. Interpolation over historical | data is just a means of compressing history into | parameters, ie., its a compressed lookup table. That | isn't ever a /reason/, exactly, if a person simply used | such a table -- they wouldnt mean what they said | tshaddox wrote: | Okay, but how do you test whether any speaker (human or | otherwise) _understands_ something without asking them to | explain it? If you have some other test (like perhaps | some analysis of what the human brain is doing when it is | understanding something), great! But even then, why can | 't the computer do the same thing that the human brain is | doing which constitutes understanding? Or if the only | test is to ask the speaker to explain something to you, | well then, the Chinese room can do that too! Of course | you end up with an infinite regress where you can ask the | speaker to explain the previous explanation forever, but | that's true for human speakers as well. | mjburgess wrote: | The question is whether what _causes_ us to understand | things is a computational process. | | See my comment to the other reply, an others in this | thread about chaos/non-determinism to see why I doubt. | | Ie., I dont think our organic growth and adaption to our | environment, in being profoundly chaotic (and via QM, | thef. non-deterministic) is likely to be describable as a | computable function. | vlowther wrote: | Given that your squishy brainmeats also consist of neural | networks that have been trained directly by years of | experience and indirectly by billions of years of | evolution, I can write off your response as just a | weighted average retrieval across a compressed dataset of | trillions of your experiences. | mjburgess wrote: | If, on the occasion I say, "I like you" my saying it is | _caused_ by _my liking you_ -- then you can describe this | process however you wish. | | Since my liking you is caused by my immediate | environment, it isn't reducible to a weighted average of | my history. | | Another way of putting it: the historical positions of | all the molecules in some water aren't sufficient to | determine its present state. It's state depends on its | container (ie., the pressure & temp of its environment). | And there are a very very large number of states of | water, many still being discovered. | | In this sense my state in any moment is a point in an | infinite space of states -- not determined by my history. | But also _extremely complexly_ by my container -- my | social, etc. environment. The world hitting my senses is | doing more to me than the air on the water. It induces in | me a state which cannot be "averaged" from my history. | | Thus, no, we are not weighed averages of our histories. | We are profoundly chaotic and organic organisms whose | growth in our environments enables us to respond to our | enviroments by entering a near infinite number of states. | These states arent in our history, they are how our | biophysical structure -- via history -- responses to the | near infinite depth of the here-and-now. | | We are more like water than a computer. A computer is a | deterministic machine which is a deterministic function | of its deterministic inputs. Water is a chatoic system | whose state "isnt up to it". Water's state is /in/ its | container, and water itself is a non-determinsitic | chatoic soup. | | The chaos of water is the least of what one nanometer of | a cell has; a cell is a trillion times that adaptive and | responsive. And we are a trillion of those. | | We are a cascade of chaotic state changes provoked by an | infinitely rich environment action on our bodies shaped | by a long history of organic growth. | | We don't have "neural networks", we have cells. That some | form "networks" has nothing to do with what we are. A | complete misdirection. | mannykannot wrote: | > Since my liking you is caused by my immediate | environment, it isn't reducible to a weighted average of | my history. | | It is not clear to me that this cannot be the case of a | weighted average very heavily weighted to the immediate | past. | | > The historical positions of all the molecules in some | water aren't sufficient to determine its present state. | It's state depends on its container (ie., the pressure & | temp of its environment). | | AFAIK, given that you could determine the momenta of the | molecules from a history of their positions, this would | be sufficient to determine its state (maybe you need | their spin as well?) The relevant information about the | container has been impressed on the motion of the | molecules. | | Similarly, we can suppose that the history of your | environment becomes manifest in your mental states (and a | predisposition towards certain state transitions) - | though, on account of the complexity of that environment, | in a compressed form. | | > We are more like water than a computer. A computer is a | deterministic machine which is a deterministic function | of its deterministic inputs. Water is a chatoic system | whose state "isnt up to it". Water's state is /in/ its | container, and water itself is a non-determinsitic | chatoic soup. | | And yet we can usefully model fluid dynamics on a | computer, _even though the mathematical representation of | the problem is analytically intractable._ This line of | argument does not appear to be leading in the direction | you think it does. | | > We don't have "neural networks", we have cells. That | some form "networks" has nothing to do with what we are. | A complete misdirection. | | I am generally distrustful of these ontological arguments | - quite often, it seems, things that were once thought of | as being completely different turned out to be similar in | some relevant way. | jimbokun wrote: | > If consciousness is a relational property of a system | | But first you have to establish this is true. | hackinthebochs wrote: | Not really. The point is that as an argument against | computationalism about the mind, Searle's Chinese room | can't rule out computationalism if mind is merely a | relational property of a system. | mananaysiempre wrote: | The Chinese room was _originally_ an argument against the | consciousness of automatons, but then EPR was an argument | against (fundamental) entanglement, Bell more or less | expected his inequality to hold, Michaelson-Morley was | interpreted as having found the luminiferous aether, and the | Poisson (aka Arago) spot was a _reductio ad absurdum_ of the | wave theory of light. All of these things aren't obsolete, | they are still useful pieces of insight, but the state of the | art regarding how they should be conceptualized has moved on | from what their originators thought. | | Which is not an argument _for_ any particular intepretation | of the Chinese room, it's only to say that the _bare_ fact | that the original author thought of it in a particular way | doesn't mean we should do so. | retrac wrote: | The Chinese Room is useful as an idea or model, even if you | don't agree with the original interpretation. I am fond of | the view that the room is potentially conscious, with human | or machine worker. The worker should expect to understand the | conversation they are mechanically carrying out no more than | your individual brain cells ought to expect to understand. | guerrilla wrote: | They do [1][2]*. | | 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-complexity/ | | 2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computability/ | | * Note that the OP is even cited there. | jimhefferon wrote: | I approached people in the Phil Dept where I work, and they | expressed only polite interest (i.e., disinterest). So from my | (very limited) survey, there may be folks willing to write | entries, but, that I can tell, there is not broad interest. | sharker8 wrote: | Are we talking continental or analytic philosophers? | nathias wrote: | We should and do, but Chineese room is a philosophically unsound | analogy. | hristov wrote: | So they can get better jobs? Rimshot. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-16 23:01 UTC)