comments

Searle's Chinese Room is trapped in a dilemma

The Chinese Room can't be as Searle describes it, because it either has semantics after all or else it can't speak Chinese (see detailed text).

Either the Chinese Room uses an integrated, syntactic-semantic component to produce fluent Chinese speaking behaviour.
 
In which case, the room is not purely syntactic, as Searle claims it is.

Or the room works purely on the syntactic rules.

In which case, it won't produce fluent Chinese speaking behaviour, because fluency requires the ability to extrapolate beyond specified syntactic rules (like those contained in the rulebook).
 
In either case, the room is not as Searle describes it.

Patricia Hannah, 1985
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
⌃
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
■
Searle's Chinese Room is trapped in a dilemma
□
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
□
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 (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip