The point about him doing the manual execution of the computer is a stupid parlor trick. Individual proteins in axons have no special awareness of "English" encoded in the firing. RNA expression has no special awareness of "English". It seems like appeal to bias rather than an actual argument.
I find far too many philosophical constructs insufficiently deconstructed.
Plus everyone has a different personal interpretation of language and meaning shaded by different exposures and interpretations of sensory input. Sufficient common experience is likely what gives words some semblance of common meaning between people.
I would argue what makes AI truly hard to do is that a computer can't have the experience of birth, child rearing, etc. It's too foreign. But at some point language veers into a coded representation of physical laws and reality, and there AI can converge with human experience.
The point about him doing the manual execution of the computer is a stupid parlor trick. Individual proteins in axons have no special awareness of "English" encoded in the firing. RNA expression has no special awareness of "English". It seems like appeal to bias rather than an actual argument.
I find far too many philosophical constructs insufficiently deconstructed.
Plus everyone has a different personal interpretation of language and meaning shaded by different exposures and interpretations of sensory input. Sufficient common experience is likely what gives words some semblance of common meaning between people.
I would argue what makes AI truly hard to do is that a computer can't have the experience of birth, child rearing, etc. It's too foreign. But at some point language veers into a coded representation of physical laws and reality, and there AI can converge with human experience.