The problem with Galileo is that he did not yet have good enough evidence to assert what he was asserting (even though what he was asserting turned out to be true).
The point of the Chinese room is to show you that the guy who has memorized the standard responses to various questions in Chinese does not in fact know Chinese. He's mindlessly parroting things.
what would it mean to "know" a language? one could imagine a series of increasingly complicated questions designed to relate various words, subjects, associations, maybe culture and history. But one could just as easily imagine a sheet of paper with the answers on answering them - and our friend answering them, in seemingly fluent Chinese. Im not convinced there is any experiment one could perform to convincingly separate the two (without removing the man or his translation aids from the box) - thus does your idea of "knowing" exist?
An AI cannot be removed from its box, because it doesn't have one. It really does have enough information inside of its essence to reply. In fact, that information makes up its essence.
I agree that in some sense their knowledge is distinct and of a different character to human knowledge. But what that means conceptually or morally exactly is very complicated, and cannot be dismissed easily
All living things have souls. For most Ur-Platonists (which includes nearly all orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, and pagan Greek and Roman philosophers/theologians until the Enlightenment), the soul is:
* what makes a thing what it is (it's form/eidos/essence/universal/nature)
* what makes a thing a living thing at all
* what unifies and coheres the many disparate parts of a living thing
The relevant difference between those of us with human natures and those beings who lacked human natures is that our human nature (i.e. our souls) has the power to come to know universals/natures/forms themselves (albeit imperfectly), whereas other beings do not. For a dog, their senses are acquainted with many instances of cats, but they never are able to go from these individual sense impressions to the form/nature/universal of cat, or ficus carica, or what have you.
> An example of a programming language with true Boolean logic is APL, where the logical truth values are the numbers "1" and "0" (which is very handy in expressing conditional operations on arrays), while all the programming languages that use "true" and "false" do not use Boolean logic, despite claiming to do so.
So Bash could be considered the red-headed, left-handed sibling to APL?
In APL, the fact that the truth values are also numbers is exploited by eliminating the need to create a new notation for various kinds of masked array operations, like those implemented in GPUs and in Intel/AMD AVX-512 for providing parallel conditional operations.
In APL and similar languages, applying a relational operator to a combination of vectors, matrices or other kinds of arrays will produce an array of "0" or "1" values, which can then be used in various kinds of array multiplications to select a part of the elements of an array for some kind of operation, e.g. a reduction operation.
This is just a reuse of the notation for arithmetic operations, useful to minimize the number of distinct operator symbols, because a good compiler will not do multiplications by "1" or "0", but it will use SIMD masked operations or blend instructions or conditional move instructions in order to get the same result.
If Malaysia can't obtain 30% of its fuel because of the Hormuz closure, they don't just reduce their consumption of fuel by 30%, but make up for most of the deficit by buying it for a higher price somewhere else. But the fuel they buy to make up for the deficit simply means there's less fuel for other folks buying in that market to purchase, which drives up prices. This process repeats until prices stabilize worldwide, which ultimately results in higher prices for fuel in the UK.
When trying to obtain evidence, investigators or regular officers will make frequent recourse to lies and intimidation to get you to admit to things that you may or may not have done. For example, "If you don't tell us where you were that day, CPS will take your kids away" or "Look, if you just admit what you did, we can let you go" or "We've already detained your wife/brother/mother/father and they've fessed up; just yadayada."
Police are trained to lie to you in the course of investigation so “they could choose not to do their job (by conducting an investigation)” doesn’t refute the notion that it’s their job to lie to you, it affirms it. It’s like saying “it’s not cops’ job to lie to you, some of them are dogs whose entire job is sniffing out cocaine with their extraordinary sense of smell”
It's like saying it's a pilot's job to wear a uniform. The uniform may be required by their employer, but it's not the job. A law banning pilots from wearing uniforms would not result in jail time for doing their job.
What are you talking about? You asked “how is it the police’s job to lie to me?” and got an answer (it is). It’s not a hypothetical that relies on a thought experiment, it’s just a true statement. You can’t imagine your way into a world where it’s not the police’s job to lie to you.
Lying is not an inherent part of the job nor is it required by all employers. It is not, in fact, the police's job to lie to me, any more than it's a pilot's job to wear a uniform.
Making it illegal for police to lie on the job would have the effect of many police no longer lying on the job, rather than putting all police in jail.
Obviously lying isn’t required by all employers. Most employers aren’t the police (eg it is not the grocery clerk’s job to lie to you.) We are just talking about police, where lying to you is their job.
> Making it illegal for police to lie on the job would have the effect of many police no longer lying on the job, rather than putting all police in jail.
I still have no idea what you are talking about here. If you made something that the police do every day illegal then they wouldn’t arrest each other for doing it? That is obviously true but unrelated to the fact that it’s the police’s job to lie to you. Or it almost seems like you’re trying to say “if cops couldn’t lie to you then their job description would be different than it is now”, but that would just be another way of you saying that it is their job to lie to you?
I’m not sure what this fixation on hypothetical police that don’t lie to you is about, but again, saying “I am picturing imaginary police in my head where it’s not their job to lie to you” does not refute the fact that it’s the police’s job to lie to you, it affirms that it’s their job to lie to you. “All of my contrary evidence exists as stuff I made up in my head” is generally a supportive statement to any notion!
