Barrier's a problem for Searle's theory too

Searle insists intentionality is caused by and realised in brains. But intentional systems are made of parts that lack intentionality. This applies as much to brain neurons as to computer parts.

Because Searle insists that intentionality is caused by and realised in brains (see the Biological Naturalism arugument), the syntax semantics barrier is as much a problem for Searle's theory as it is for AI.

Intentional systems are made up of parts that lack intentionality. For example, many biological systems are composed of neurons that lack intentionality. These neurons work on a purely syntactic level, just as computational elements do in a computer.

So it seems the syntactic-semantics barrier is as much a problem for brains as it is for machines.
 
Richard Double, 1983.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
The Syntax-Semantics Barrier
Barrier's a problem for Searle's theory too
Notion of semantic hookup is problematic
Programs that learn can overcome the barrier
Searle's 3rd axiom requires scientific research
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