The "part-of" principle is fallacious
The internalization reply rest on a fallacious "part-of" principle, whereby, if you can't do X, no part of you can do X. Just because the man who has internalized the Chinese Room can't speak Chinese, it does not follow that no part of him can speak
Jack Copeland, 1993.

Note: For a similar argument, see "The Chinese Room Argument Commists the Fallacy of Composition".
CONTEXT(Help)
-
Artificial Intelligence »Artificial Intelligence
▲
Can computers think? [1] »Can computers think? [1]
▲
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3] »Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
▲
The Chinese Room Argument [4] »The Chinese Room Argument [4]
▲
The Systems Reply »The Systems Reply
▲
The Internalisation Reply »The Internalisation Reply
■
The "part-of" principle is fallacious
◄
Jack Copeland »Jack Copeland
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About