comments

Chinese Room more than a simulation

In a mere simulation inputs and outputs aren't of the same type as the phenomenon being simulated. But in the Chinese Room the inputs & outputs (symbol strings) are the same as those used by a real Chinese speaker.

A fire stimulator doesn't take wood as input or generate heat as output, so a fire simulator is a mere simulation.

But in the Chinese Room the inputs and outputs (symbol strings) are the same as those used by a real Chinese speaker. Therefore, the Chinese Room is more than a mere simulation of Chinese speaking.

Note: also, see the "If a simulated intelligence passes, is it intelligent?" arguments on Map 2.

Laurence Carlton, 1984.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
⌃
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
■
Chinese Room more than a simulation
□
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
□
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 (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip