Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The questions about whether computers understand cannot be settled without a definition of 'understand' that provides a testable criterion.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's family resemblance theory shows that meaningful concept application does not require necessary and sufficient conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We reliably attribute understanding to other humans without any formal definition or testable criterion for 'understanding'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the absence of a formal definition does not prevent justified judgments about whether a system understands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hilary Putnam's functionalism holds that mental states are defined by causal-functional roles, not by definitional criteria we consciously possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scientific inquiry regularly settles questions about unobservable states (electron spin, gene expression) without prior testable definitions of contested terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The question of machine understanding can therefore be investigated empirically and theoretically without first settling a definitional dispute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Whether Empirical Strong AI is true or false depends on whether computers satisfy the criteria for understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a definition of 'understand' that yields a test, there is no way to judge the hypothesis true or false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.