comments

Man in Chinese Room doesn't instantiate a progam

A human being (or a homunculus) shuffling symbols in a room is not a proper instantiation of a computer program, and so the Chinese room argument does not refute AI.



Note: for more multiple realisability arguments see the "Is the brain a computer?" arguments on Map 1, the "Can functional states generate consciousness?" arguments on Map 6 and sidebar "Formal systems: an overview" on Map 7.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
⌃
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
■
Man in Chinese Room doesn't instantiate a progam
↳
Implementations of programs must perform reliably
↳
Computers and humans run programs differently
↳
Computers embody programs; they don't obey them
↳
Proper instantiations require the right causal connections
↳
Simulation requires duplication of functional interconnections
↳
The proper algorithm is constitutive of thought
↳
A properly designed Chinese room is Turing complete
□
The Syntax-Semantics Barrier
□
Only minds are intrinsically intentional
□
Understanding arises from right causal powers
□
Can't process symbols predicationally or oppositionally
□
Chinese Room refutes strong AI not weak AI
□
The Combination Reply
□
The Systems Reply
□
Robot reply: Robots can think
□
The Brain Simulator Reply
□
The Many Mansions Reply
□
The Pseudorealisation Fallacy
□
Searle's Chinese Room is trapped in a dilemma
□
Chinese Room more than a simulation
□
Chinese-speaking too limited a counterexample
□
The Chinese Room makes a modularity assumption
□
Man in Room understands some Chinese questions
□
The Chinese Room argument is circular
□
There are questions the Chinese Room can't answer
□
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