Views
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Page ✓
Article
Outline
Document
Down
All
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Request email digest
Past 24 hours
Past 2 days
Past 3 days
Past week
Add
Add page
Add comment
Add citation
Edit
Edit page
Delete page
Share
Link
Bookmark
Embed
Social media
Login
Member login
Register now for a free account
🔎
The Combination Reply
OpposingArgument
1
#767
Perhaps, taken separately, the Systems Reply and the Robot Reply and the Brain Simulator Reply each fails to prove that computers can think; but taken together, they conclusively show that an artificially embodied syntactic system can think.
That is, a total Chinese-speaking system that included a robotic body, transducers, and a brain simulator would be able to think.
Anticipated by John Searle 1980a, 1980b, 1990b.
CONTEXT
(Help)
-
Artificial Intelligence »
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence☜A collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?—exploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.☜F1CEB7
▲
Can computers think? [1] »
Can computers think? [1]
Can computers think? [1]☜Can a computational system possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding? ☜FFB597
▲
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3] »
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]☜Thinking is a rule governed manipulation of symbolic representational structures. In humans, symbol systems are instantiated in the brain, but the same symbol systems can also be instantiated in a computer. ☜59C6EF
▲
The Chinese Room Argument [4] »
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
The Chinese Room Argument [4]☜Instantiation of a formal program isnt enough to produce semantic understanding or intentionality. A man who doesnt understand Chinese, can answer written Chinese questions using an English rulebook telling him how to manipulate Chinese symbols.☜EF597B
■
The Combination Reply
The Combination Reply☜Perhaps, taken separately, the Systems Reply and the Robot Reply and the Brain Simulator Reply each fails to prove that computers can think; but taken together, they conclusively show that an artificially embodied syntactic system can think.☜EF597B
●
Knowing how the robot works »
Knowing how the robot works
Knowing how the robot works☜If a robot looked and behaved like a human, it would be rational to explain its actions in terms of intentionality. But if we knew it acted on the basis of formal symbol manipulations wed no longer appeal to intentionality to explain its behaviour.☜EF597B
Heading
Summary
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Details
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
November 2024
>
<<
November 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
44
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
45
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
46
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
48
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
0
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#767
Node type:
OpposingArgument
Entry date (GMT):
7/31/2006 3:52:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
12/30/2007 10:00:00 AM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
0
Average rating:
9
by
1
users
x
Select file to upload