Misunderstands the sense of "right causal powers"

Searle just claims that there is some set of causal powers (brain-based or otherwise) that is necessary for understanding & that formal computer programs lack that set of causal powers.

Searle doesn't claim that anything producing intentionality must be equivalent to a brain.

Karl Pfeifer, 1992.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
Understanding arises from right causal powers
Sufficiency doesn't imply necessary powers
Misunderstands the sense of "right causal powers"
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