Yeah, just the data that fits nice. Then use peer-pressure and consensus to get buy in - and there you go - Science at work. Good luck with that.
I suspect that the any algorithm expressible in terms of the operation of the human mind can be emulated by a Turing machine. In that respect I don’t disagree with you; the problems, rather, involve meaning and intentionality. Consider Kripke’s distinction between addition and quaddition: given a mechanical device purporting to sum any two numbers, no physical fact of the matter fixes whether the device in fact performs addition, or instead some other operation that would give different answers in untried cases. Addition just as performed by the human mind cannot then be something physical.
Or I think, at any rate. I’ll point out that I’m not attempting to pick a fight unrelated to the main topic, just explaining myself.
I find the possibility of the room itself comprehending Chinese … iffy, to be honest. But I don’t necessarily think his Chinese Room argument is his most compelling, and often an excuse for sidetracks about artificial intelligence and the possibility thereof. See instead Is the Brain a Digital Computer?.
Randomness does not detract from a process in order to call it algorithmic or computational. Actually , the reverse may be true - there are algorithms that necessitate randomness in order to operate reliably and fast, like prime number testing. Also human understanding of the algorithm is strangely impossible at times. “Understanding” the results of genetic algorithms or neural networks has an unclear meaning. That is, a machine could be built, that has a reliable input/output function and whose operation is inexplicable.
In fact, just for clarifying myself, I don’t believe that something approaching an “artificial mind” is around the corner; we’re far away from that. Stating that the brain is comparable to a universal computing device does not make our task easier; it’s comparable to being able to make an animal since we know the chemical elements that we need.
Total agreement re clarification. I’m an adherent of the Strong AI hypothesis (one of the very few “strong” principles I will hold with,) but I’m not fool enough to think I’ll live long enough to meet HAL 9000. The practical objections are overwhelming. I only argue in favor of the very abstract philosophical principle that, for instance, an “AI” system that is written in a (very big!) physical book – where clerks turn the pages, jot down entries into spaces in the text, read values back to each other, etc. – is actually “intelligent” and, more daring yet, is also actually “conscious.”
Not everyone, even those on my side, goes quite that far!
I agree.
I should not care about the physical embodiment of a strong AI system (including clerks turning pages – well the government will probably be bigger then), and I don’t care much about the idea of consciousness stuff being “special” in any way. As a kid I vividly remember nightmares after reading a sci-fi story describing sentient beings in the form of oozy yucky green flowing stuff. Clerks and pages are so much more civilized. I still have 2 problems though:
-
I imagine that “machine” will probably self-organize, i.e. we won’t need (or indeed be able) to specify its every logic gate, but only some goals to be achieved by heuristic/N.N./genetic or whatever algorithms will be devised. So it will be a machine created by a machine (or itself).
In that case, I can’t see how we would be much better understanding its functioning than the functioning of our own brain. So a psychiatrist trying to cure it from depression will still have a hard job. -
Will such a machine need a physical body resembling a human one ? In fact, I can’t quite see how not. I can’t imagine we will be able to dump “state information” from an existing adult human. Surely enough, that state information is a function of the brain at birth plus all experiences and memories since. So, in order for that machine to behave human-like, it will have to be raised human-like and therefore it will have to appear human-like to other humans that constitute its (sic) adoptive parents and the rest of the environment. The machine must be deceived by itself that it is a human, otherwise it would feel very strange. It must bleed when pricked and laugh when tickled. It cannot show wires when operated upon.
So, how do I know I am not that machine ?
Yeah, I know it’s a zombie thread, but I’ve never heard, nor heard about, this alleged joke. Details, please, including “chain of provenance, and witnesses”. You both still post here, so asking won’t get my brain eaten (I hope), since neither of you seem to be very undead.
Getting back to subject, I like Rationalwiki take on this, as they consult the current experts on what the current state of affairs are in scientific circles regarding controversial topics.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
I liked that last bit not needing a citation. 
I was going to PM you with this, as it’s off topic, but you seem to have PMs turned off, so – please forgive the momentary indulgence in a highjack…
Q: What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
A: One is a flaming Nazi gasbag, and the other is just a dirigible.
I originated this joke, and told it as widely as I could. A professor of literature at UCSD heard it from me. The publisher of the “Flush Rush Quarterly” heard it from him, and published it in that newsletter. Not long after…it appeared in a Doonesbury strip.
(The joke format is not new. I was basing it off of: “What’s the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other is just a fish.”)
Such is my brush with fame… Anyway, I’m more of a ghoul than a zombie. 
That’s funny, I just checked, and it’s turned on. And I got a PM from someone else a few days ago… Hmm
Nice joke, though! Thanks. [/hijack]
Jeez, Trinopus! Can’t you go a decade without bringing up your Doonesbury joke! 
So, have I told the dynamite story recently?