The Many Mansions Reply

The problems raised by the Chinese Room argument only exist because of the present state of technology. Someday we'll be able to build devices that reproduce the causal processes involved in intentionality. At that time we will be able to explain it.

Argument anticipated by John Searle, 1980a, 1980p, 1990b.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
The Many Mansions Reply
The many mansions reply trivialises strong AI
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 Pseudorealisation Fallacy
Searle's Chinese Room is trapped in a dilemma
Chinese Room more than a simulation
Man in Chinese Room doesn't instantiate a progam
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 (1)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip