Chinese Room doesn't assume locus of control
Searle gives examples of programs—beer-can systems, water pipes, etc—that don't need a central locus of control. His only Chinese Room assumptions are "programs are syntactical, syntax is not sufficient for semantics, and minds have semantics".
John Searle, 1989.

Notes:

For more on the assumptions, see "The Syntax-Semantics Barrier" arguments on this map.

For Jacquette's response to these assumptions see "The Chinese Room argument is Circular", Box 58 .
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]
▲
Understanding arises from right causal powers »Understanding arises from right causal powers
▲
Brain's causal powers reproduced by a computer »Brain's causal powers reproduced by a computer
▲
Searle assumes a central locus of control »Searle assumes a central locus of control
■
Chinese Room doesn't assume locus of control
●
Searle never abandons locus of control »Searle never abandons locus of control
◄
John Searle »John Searle
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About