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
🔎
Searle assumes a central locus of control
VoorArgument
1
#804
Searle presupposes any simulation of a native Chinese speaker will involve a central locus of control that manipulate symbols without understanding Chinese—but hasn't shown that a model without a central locus of control wouldn't understand Chinese.
Jacquette cites a version of a computational system that simulates the brain's microlevel functional structure as an example of a model that would lack any central locus of control.
Dale Jacquette, 1989.
PAGE NAVIGATOR
(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
▲
Understanding arises from right causal powers »
Understanding arises from right causal powers
Understanding arises from right causal powers☜Systems capable of semantic understanding and intentionality must have at least the same causal powers as brains. Brains have sufficient causal powers to produce understanding: its an open empirical question whether other materials (eg silicon) do.☜98CE71
▲
Brain's causal powers reproduced by a computer »
Brain's causal powers reproduced by a computer
Brain's causal powers reproduced by a computer☜A computational system that could duplicate the microlevel functional structure of the brain duplicates the brains causal powers. If the causal powers give rise to intentionality—as Searle suggests—then such a system would possess intentionality.☜EF597B
■
Searle assumes a central locus of control
Searle assumes a central locus of control☜Searle presupposes any simulation of a native Chinese speaker will involve a central locus of control that manipulate symbols without understanding Chinese—but hasnt shown that a model without a central locus of control wouldnt understand Chinese.☜98CE71
●
Chinese Room doesn't assume locus of control »
Chinese Room doesn't assume locus of control
Chinese Room doesn't assume locus of control☜Searle gives examples of programs—beer-can systems, water pipes, etc—that dont 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.☜EF597B
◄
Brain has a von Neumann architecture »
Brain has a von Neumann architecture
Brain has a von Neumann architecture☜Three features of Von Neumann architecture also characterise processing in brains: 1) processing is sequential; 2) symbol strings are stored and accessed at specific memory addresses; 3) theres a central processing unit that controls processing.☜FFFACD
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:
#804
Node type:
SupportiveArgument
Gemaakt op (GMT):
8/2/2006 9:21:00 AM
Laatste bewerking (GMT):
12/11/2007 11:28:00 PM
Show other editors
Inkomende kruisrelatie
1
Uitgaande kruisrelatie
0
Gemiddelde waardering:
0
by
0
gebruikers
x
Select file to upload