As we approach the interface between material and non material I try to pin down the difference between a computer processing and a human understanding. You can read the original here.
My post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 06:20 am:
Hi Richard. I have let your post "sink in" to my brain because I think we are close to the critical issues and I don't want to spoil it with rashness.
I believe the question posed by the Chinese room is about the difference between doing and understanding at the first level, of which there are several. The point is that however well the computer runs the Chinese language program, it will never understand it. All it can do is process. Now, if you analyse this process you will find that the computer uses various software and hardware devices to achieve its objective. Similarly, if you analyse the human you will identify various brain processes, chemical processes and physical processes which also achieve the same end. So are they identical? Both are capable of processing. However, the computer can only process, the human has something more to offer.
So far, so good. Now it gets tricky.We know that the human has "understanding" of the process but it is not clear what this means. Certainly, you won't find understanding by dissecting the brain. So, we seem to be moving toward a description which is non material. You cannot locate an understanding. You cannot build one or buy one in the shops. So can you understand something without having a body to understand it in? Now there's a question!
I was going to say a lot more but reading my post thus far I think I should pause for some reaction to that point. I can't wait!
Peter Rayner
Richard's response is to agree with much of my post. However, he suggests that understanding is one end of a spectrum with materialism at the other.
Richard's post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 03:21 pm:
Hi Peter, I'll get stuck in straight away and say that I believe we are in agreement from your first paragragh. However, I'd like to add something if I may. I think the difference between when a computer processes, and when a human processes, on average, the computer is more reliable. A human is susceptible to errors of calculations, and a human's memory can also be brought in doubt sometimes. I think a computer is like paper people used to process calculations on before computers existed, except with the growth of technology, humans have brought in a new tool to speed the processing up, by making it process itself, after a human has ordered it to do so.
Peter, I have to say I like your third paragragh, it brought a smile to my face because we both know it is true, it cannot be rejected, and causes it to be more tricky. However, I do have a response. I think that although understanding isn't a physical attribute, it is on the other end of the spectrum from materialism, and that would be experience. From the day we were born, we can naturally tell if someone understands us. Before we can talk, we cry until we know our parents understand us so they know what we want. Everyday as we grow older our understanding grows as we learn, which is why it is dependent on experiences, something computers do not have as it does not have a mind of it's own. Understanding is what makes human languages work, which involves everything. Without it, everyone would be confused.
In response to your question, until the day computers can interact with humans from their own approach, without human command, with something different from what it is programmed to do, then from my experiences so far, I can safely say I've not come across anything that understands without having a body to understand it in.
I've just looked back and realised how much I've said, which I grossly underestimated! I look forward, as ever, to the continuity of this discussion.
Richard Debnam
Tags: afterlife Chinese Room doing understanding computer process experience language spectrum
My post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 06:20 am:
Hi Richard. I have let your post "sink in" to my brain because I think we are close to the critical issues and I don't want to spoil it with rashness.
I believe the question posed by the Chinese room is about the difference between doing and understanding at the first level, of which there are several. The point is that however well the computer runs the Chinese language program, it will never understand it. All it can do is process. Now, if you analyse this process you will find that the computer uses various software and hardware devices to achieve its objective. Similarly, if you analyse the human you will identify various brain processes, chemical processes and physical processes which also achieve the same end. So are they identical? Both are capable of processing. However, the computer can only process, the human has something more to offer.
So far, so good. Now it gets tricky.We know that the human has "understanding" of the process but it is not clear what this means. Certainly, you won't find understanding by dissecting the brain. So, we seem to be moving toward a description which is non material. You cannot locate an understanding. You cannot build one or buy one in the shops. So can you understand something without having a body to understand it in? Now there's a question!
I was going to say a lot more but reading my post thus far I think I should pause for some reaction to that point. I can't wait!
Peter Rayner
Richard's response is to agree with much of my post. However, he suggests that understanding is one end of a spectrum with materialism at the other.
Richard's post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 03:21 pm:
Hi Peter, I'll get stuck in straight away and say that I believe we are in agreement from your first paragragh. However, I'd like to add something if I may. I think the difference between when a computer processes, and when a human processes, on average, the computer is more reliable. A human is susceptible to errors of calculations, and a human's memory can also be brought in doubt sometimes. I think a computer is like paper people used to process calculations on before computers existed, except with the growth of technology, humans have brought in a new tool to speed the processing up, by making it process itself, after a human has ordered it to do so.
Peter, I have to say I like your third paragragh, it brought a smile to my face because we both know it is true, it cannot be rejected, and causes it to be more tricky. However, I do have a response. I think that although understanding isn't a physical attribute, it is on the other end of the spectrum from materialism, and that would be experience. From the day we were born, we can naturally tell if someone understands us. Before we can talk, we cry until we know our parents understand us so they know what we want. Everyday as we grow older our understanding grows as we learn, which is why it is dependent on experiences, something computers do not have as it does not have a mind of it's own. Understanding is what makes human languages work, which involves everything. Without it, everyone would be confused.
In response to your question, until the day computers can interact with humans from their own approach, without human command, with something different from what it is programmed to do, then from my experiences so far, I can safely say I've not come across anything that understands without having a body to understand it in.
I've just looked back and realised how much I've said, which I grossly underestimated! I look forward, as ever, to the continuity of this discussion.
Richard Debnam
Tags: afterlife Chinese Room doing understanding computer process experience language spectrum
No comments:
Post a Comment