preview

What Is The Chinese Room Argument

Decent Essays

John Searle 1980(in Cooney, 2000), provides a thought experiment, commonly referred to as the Chinese room argument (CRA), to show that computers, programmed to simulate human cognition, are incapable of understanding language. The CRA requires us to consider a scenario where Searle, who is illiterate in Chinese, finds himself locked in a room with a book containing Chinese characters. Additionally, he has another book which has a set of instructions written in English (which he understands), that allows him to match and manipulate the Chinese characters so that he can provide appropriate written responses (in Chinese) to incoming questions, which are also written in Chinese. Moreover, Searle has a pile of blank paper with which he uses to jot down his answers. Subsequently, Searle becomes so proficient in providing responses that the quality of his answers matches that of a native Chinese speaker. Thus, Searle in the CR functions as a computer would, where he is the system while the books are the program and the blank paper acts as storage. Surely, we can conclude that Searle does not actually understand Chinese, but …show more content…

In everyday communication we tend to use the two words interchangeably, believing that the referent of understanding is the same as the referent of meaning, while sometimes believing that understanding constitutes meaning (Raatikainen, 2010:2). However, understanding refers to our knowledge about syntax, arrangement, the what, how and when to do or say things. In this way, knowledge of understanding (KU) regards formalities in the world. In contrast, knowledge of meaning (KM) refers to our knowledge of the ‘why’. In other words, when we acquire KM we make ‘sense’ of why we do what we do, when and how we do them. As a result, KU happens mainly without the appreciation of what our actions or words mean, whereas KM allows us to grasp the significance of our words and

Get Access