- #141
Tisthammerw
- 175
- 0
quantumcarl said:Tisthammerw said:Personally (for the most part) I don't think I would understand the meaning of a Chinese character no matter how often I looked at it. For the most part (as far as I know) modern Chinese characters aren't the same as pictures or drawings; and a string of these characters would still leave me even more baffled. And don't forget the definition of understanding I am using: a person has to know what the word means. This clearly isn't the case here ex hypothesi.
I will still enter the contaminating effect of the pictorial nature of the Chinese language as a potential error in the experiment. The very fact that "subliminal influence" is a real influence in the bio-organic (human etc..) learning process suggests that what remains of the "pictorial nature" of Chinese caligraphy in modern Chinese caligraphy also presents a contamination to the experiment.
That's still a little too speculative for me. If we ran some actual experiments showing people picking up Chinese language merely by reading the text you might have something then.
Tisthammerw said:And what flaws are these? My main beef with some of these arguments is that they show how a human can learn a new language. That's great, but it still seems a bit of an ignoratio elenchi and misses the point of the thought experiment big time. Remember, what’s at the dispute is not whether humans can learn, but whether computers can.
Yes... I see. Computers are programmed. They don't really have a choice if they are programmed or not. Humans learn. Some have the motivation to do so... some do not. There are many many factors behind the function of learning. I realize that at some fictitious point a computer might have the power to gather its own data and program itself...
And that's kind of what the story of program X talks about. Let program X stand for any program (with all the learning algorithms you could ever want) that if run would produce understanding. Yet when the program is run, there is still no understanding (at least, not as how I've defined the term).