>> ^dgandhi:
Come on guys, he is so cute, with his little logical fallacies, and faith based arguments. Sure he's not as funny as QM, but he at least passes the turing test.


Oh man, I ache so much for the ability to promote comments right now!

Come on guys, he is so cute, with his little logical fallacies, and faith based arguments. Sure he's not as funny as QM, but he at least passes the turing test.

>> ^imstellar28:
^NetRunner
Here is my new-age quack morality score:
1. Harm: 0
2. Fairness: 0.8
3. Loyalty: 0
4. Authority: 0
5. Purity: 0
I answered "extremely relevant" to the question "Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights." and "not at all relevant or strongly disagree" to every other question. all I've got to say is watch out motherf ckers I have no innate moral foundation!


You're trying to be a detached ideologically-pure zealot. Moral judgment is something you do instinctively, and something you feel. If you see a man beating a little girl in the street, you don't think "oh my god, that man is abusing that girl's rights!" you think "he's hurting her!"...or at least you do if you're a human.

Sometimes I think you're just some sort of weird Turing-test, though.

I don't buy it. I'm only 30 minutes into the video, but it sounds like Searle is making logical fallacies, with gobbledegook sprinkled in between. I had to look up his Chinese room thought experiment on wikipedia; it's a straw man argument. The system in his thought experiment is a program using a look-up table to pass the Turing test. While at least at face value it seems such a system would not qualify as consciousness, there are ways a program can reach a result besides looking it up in a table. His thought experiment doesn't show his look-up table to be the only way to pass the Turing test, and it doesn't address the consciousness of alternative ways of passing the test. And it doesn't follow that the non-consciousness of a look-up table precludes consciousness for other methods.