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 â
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
đ
The Internalisation Reply
TegenArgument
1
#776
Suppose the man in the Room memorizes the rule book and all the symbols and does the matching in his head not on paper. He incorporates the entire Room system, but still doesn't understand Chinese. So the whole system doesn't understand Chinese.
John Searle 1980a, 1980b & 1990b.
PAGE NAVIGATOR
(Help)
-
Artificial Intelligence »
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial IntelligenceâA collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?âexploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.âF1CEB7
▲
Can computers think? [1] »
Can computers think? [1]
Can computers think? [1]âCan a computational system possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding? âFFB597
▲
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3] »
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]âThinking 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. â59C6EF
▲
The Chinese Room Argument [4] »
The Chinese Room Argument [4]
The Chinese Room Argument [4]âInstantiation 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.âEF597B
▲
The Systems Reply »
The Systems Reply
The Systems ReplyâWe can consider the person in the room as part of a total system that includes the rule book, scratch paper, and data banks of Chinese symbols. The whole system, not only the person should be regarded as understanding Chinese.âEF597B
■
The Internalisation Reply
The Internalisation ReplyâSuppose the man in the Room memorizes the rule book and all the symbols and does the matching in his head not on paper. He incorporates the entire Room system, but still doesnt understand Chinese. So the whole system doesnt understand Chinese.âEF597B
●
A dilemma about cognition and intentionality »
A dilemma about cognition and intentionality
A dilemma about cognition and intentionalityâThe internalization reply relies on the notion that cognition and intentionallity are necessarily connected. But this leads to the dilemma described in the Expanded text.âEF597B
●
Man understands Chinese but can't translate to English »
Man understands Chinese but can't translate to English
Man understands Chinese but can't translate to EnglishâOnce the man has internalized the system, he then speaks Chinese, but his English- and Chinese- speaking subsystems cant communicate. He understands both English and Chinese but cant translate between them.âEF597B
●
Phenomenology not required »
Phenomenology not required
Phenomenology not requiredâAny intuitions about what goes in the internalizing mans mind, arent relevant to a cognitive theory of understandingâwhich is only responsible for explaining competence (having all the right rules) and performance (applying the rules in context).âEF597B
●
The "part-of" principle is fallacious »
The "part-of" principle is fallacious
The "part-of" principle is fallaciousâThe internalization reply rest on a fallacious part-of principle, whereby, if you cant do X, no part of you can do X. Just because the man who has internalized the Chinese Room cant speak Chinese, it does not follow that no part of him can speak âEF597B
●
The levels of conscious involvement dilemma »
The levels of conscious involvement dilemma
The levels of conscious involvement dilemmaâOnce the man internalizes the system, the Chinese Room argument fails regardless of what level of involvement we imagine the man to have with it.âEF597B
●
The Subsystem understands »
The Subsystem understands
The Subsystem understandsâThe man who has internalised the room may not understand Chinese, but he contains an information processing subsystem does understand Chinese.âEF597B
●
Understanding is a result of speed and complexity »
Understanding is a result of speed and complexity
Understanding is a result of speed and complexityâNo human can manipulate symbols fast / accurately enough to simulate real time Chinese translation; or can memorize the Chinese symbols as the Reply suggests. Its the very speed and complexity of computers that permits  humanlike thinking to occur.âEF597B
●
We lack intuitions about the internalizing man »
We lack intuitions about the internalizing man
We lack intuitions about the internalizing manâOnce the man in the Room internalizes the room we no longer have adequately clear intuitions about whats going on inside his headâdue to the complexity of the process of internalizing the roomâto determine whether or not he understands Chinese.âEF597B
◄
John Searle »
John Searle
John SearleâArguments advanced by John Searle.âFFFACD
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
+Commentaar (
0
)
- Commentaar
Voeg commentaar toe
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citaten (
0
)
- Citaten
Voeg citaat toe
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Gemaakt door:
David Price
NodeID:
#776
Node type:
OpposingArgument
Gemaakt op (GMT):
7/31/2006 6:53:00 PM
Laatste bewerking (GMT):
12/11/2007 4:07:00 PM
Show other editors
Inkomende kruisrelatie
1
Uitgaande kruisrelatie
0
Gemiddelde waardering:
0
by
0
gebruikers
x
Select file to upload