comments

The Systems Reply

We can consider the person in the room as part of a total system that includes the rule book, scratch paper, and data banks of Chinese symbols. The whole system, not only the person should be regarded as understanding Chinese.

Anticipated by John Searle 1908a, 1980b, 1990b.

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
⌃
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
■
The Systems Reply
↳
Chinese Room argument commits fallacy of composition
↳
Man in room not in position to judge
↳
Systems reply misses the point
↳
The Internalisation Reply
□
The Syntax-Semantics Barrier
□
Only minds are intrinsically intentional
□
Understanding arises from right causal powers
□
Can't process symbols predicationally or oppositionally
□
Chinese Room refutes strong AI not weak AI
□
The Combination Reply
□
Robot reply: Robots can think
□
The Brain Simulator Reply
□
The Many Mansions Reply
□
The Pseudorealisation Fallacy
□
Searle's Chinese Room is trapped in a dilemma
□
Chinese Room more than a simulation
□
Man in Chinese Room doesn't instantiate a progam
□
Chinese-speaking too limited a counterexample
□
The Chinese Room makes a modularity assumption
□
Man in Room understands some Chinese questions
□
The Chinese Room argument is circular
□
There are questions the Chinese Room can't answer
□
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip