Programming may be necessary to understanding

Even if Searle's right that programs by themselves aren't sufficient to produce intentionality, they still might contribute to the causal powers that underlie intentionality.

Imagine a case in which two brains have evolved one to speak Chinese and one to speak English. Scientists would explain their linguistic differences in terms of underlying neurological differences. But this probably wouldn't be the whole story; we would expect some of their linguistic differences to result from programming as well.

Richard Double, 1983
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
Programming may be necessary to understanding
Biological Naturalism
Brain's causal powers reproduced by a computer
Chinese Room style argument shows causal powers insufficient
Searle commits fallacy of denying the antecedent
Sufficiency doesn't imply necessary 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