GIS Research Group 2012 - Dept. Infrastructure Engineering

However

uring never mentioned anything about understanding. He was talking about intelligence

Cheating completely is not cheating anymore! The problem vanishes

But isn't it also a fact that he is intentional when he uses his rulebook and carries out the orders

f we simulate every neuron - what could possible be left out? Nothing! There is absolutely everything in that program we can ever need.

CS: Sorry to interrupt, but let me formulate another thought experiment (comes from Savitt 1982). Suppose there are n neurons in your head. Call him agentn. Take one neuron from his head and formalize its functioning, and replace the missing neuron with its simulation. Call this agentn-1. And you can go on: take another neuron, write down its program and make the replacement. Your Chinese room is agent0! No neurons are left, there is only one huge program - a simulation of his every neuron. What happens between? Does his intentionality vanish? Does it transfer to the program

Now, you said that the person does not understand, but what about his brain

In computers, for example, you don't have the person's level as a starting-point. It might only emerge in right circumstances

he man can go outdoors and start to learn, like anybody else. He can just break the walls and meet his programmers

different from my experience where the open Shapefile spec ushered in an era of collaboration and led to a proliferation of new tools.

There’s simply no technical excuse for closed formats

it takes taxpayer money to manage public data, and then requires taxpayers to buy ESRI software in order to access that data.

APIs aren’t the same as bulk access

ESRI could become a valuable partner in opening government data–if they embrace open formats and let others in.

ESRI’s official replacement for the now deprecated Shapefile format

SRI’s new fil

exceedingly useful is also intentionally closed. And not just in the “we don’t support others opening