Searle's 3rd axiom requires scientific research

Searle's 3rd axiom assumes syntax can't produce semantics. But this assumption is exactly what is at issue in classical AI. It's an empirical issue that can't be decided in advance of scientific research—and begs the question of machine thought.

Searle's third axiom (which is nearly identical to his first conclusion) thus begs the question of whether machines can think.

Paul & Patricia Churchland, 1990.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
The Syntax-Semantics Barrier
Searle's 3rd axiom requires scientific research
3rd axiom is a logical not an empirical truth
Barrier's a problem for Searle's theory too
Notion of semantic hookup is problematic
Programs that learn can overcome the barrier
Semantics may result from Godelian self-reference
Syntax can generate natural meanings
The Empiricist Reply
The Luminous Room argument
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