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
Immediately related elementsHow this works
-
Artificial Intelligence Â»Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1] Â»Can computers think? [1]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3] Â»Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
The Chinese Room Argument [4] Â»The Chinese Room Argument [4]
Searle's Chinese Room is trapped in a dilemma
+Kommentare (0)
+Verweise (0)
+About