comments

The Chinese Room makes a modularity assumption

Searle's argument assumes that certain functional parts of human cognitive performance (eg the ability to speak Chinese) can be modelled independently of the other functional parts of the system. Evolutionary biology suggests this isn't the case.

Evolutionary biology suggests that language cannot be modelled independently of other sensorimotor capacities, because linguistic capacities never exist without these evolutionary more primitive capacities.
 
Steve Harnad, 1989.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
⌃
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
⌃
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
■
The Chinese Room makes a modularity assumption
□
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
□
Man in Chinese Room doesn't instantiate a progam
□
Chinese-speaking too limited a counterexample
□
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