Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Chinese room argument is primarily an argument in the philosophy of mind, and both major computer scientists and artificial intelligence researchers consider it irrelevant to their fields. [5] However, several concepts developed by computer scientists are essential to understanding the argument, including symbol processing , Turing machines ...
The point illustrated by the Chinese room was not that the system did not constitute any form of consciousness, according to Searle, but that "[the man in the Chinese room] does not understand Chinese at all, because the syntax of the program is not sufficient for the understanding of the semantics of a language, whether conscious or unconscious."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_room_argument&oldid=243704473"
Putnam himself formulated one of the main arguments against functionalism, the Twin Earth thought experiment, though there have been additional criticisms. John Searle's Chinese room argument (1980) is a direct attack on the claim that thought can be represented as a set of functions. It is designed to show that it is possible to mimic ...
Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem.
In this file photo, Randy Hood, right, and Chad McGowan, attorneys at McGowan, Hood, Felder & Phillips talk about a lawsuit involving Erickson Lee, a man convicted of sex crimes.
A tense confrontation erupted late Tuesday evening in the “spin room” on the sidelines of the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in Philadelphia.
so searle doesn't understand chinese, but the program does; what is the big deal ? that is like saying you can't do sign language cause your hands don't understand ASL I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but this seems like a total waste of time; I must be missing something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 22:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC) []