comments

The "part-of" principle is fallacious

The internalization reply rest on a fallacious "part-of" principle, whereby, if you can't do X, no part of you can do X. Just because the man who has internalized the Chinese Room can't speak Chinese, it does not follow that no part of him can speak

Jack Copeland, 1993.

Note: For a similar argument, see "The Chinese Room Argument Commists the Fallacy of Composition".
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
⌃
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
⌃
The Systems Reply
⌃
The Internalisation Reply
■
The "part-of" principle is fallacious
⇥
Jack Copeland
□
A dilemma about cognition and intentionality
□
Man understands Chinese but can't translate to English
□
Phenomenology not required
□
The levels of conscious involvement dilemma
□
The Subsystem understands
□
Understanding is a result of speed and complexity
□
We lack intuitions about the internalizing man
□
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