Chinese Room doesn't assume locus of control

Searle gives examples of programs—beer-can systems, water pipes, etc—that don't need a central locus of control. His only Chinese Room assumptions are "programs are syntactical, syntax is not sufficient for semantics, and minds have semantics".

John Searle, 1989.

Notes:

For more on the assumptions, see "The Syntax-Semantics Barrier" arguments on this map.

For Jacquette's response to these assumptions see "The Chinese Room argument is Circular", Box 58 .
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
Brain's causal powers reproduced by a computer
Searle assumes a central locus of control
Chinese Room doesn't assume locus of control
Searle never abandons locus of control
John Searle
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