John Searle Essay

Topic Briefly reconstruct John Searle's argument against the Turing Test as a measure of intelligence and discuss whether or not you agree with Searle's conclusion that algorithmic machines lack understanding. Why do you agree or disagree? Your paper should be 5 double spaced pages with no more than 12-point type. Requirements: 2 citations max: Searle and Turing Backup every statement! Say if I agree or not right off the bat, this isn’t a joke, don’t leave a hanging punchline First-person Writing

John Searle first proposed the argument known as The Chinese Room Argument in a book he wrote in 1984. The argument is well known if not famous and has become one of the best-know arguments in recent philosophy. Searle imagines himself locked in a room following a computer program for responding to questions written in Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle does not understand Chinese writing, but he can follow the computer program to manipulate symbols and numerals to easily respond to

A Functionalism is the theory that what makes something a mental state depends on its function or role in the cognitive system, instead of its internal constitution. To put it another way, functionalism holds that mental states correspond to functional states. Functionalism is the offspring of both identity theory and behaviorism, and comes in a few different flavors. For example, there is machine functionalism, psycho-functionalism, analytic functionalism, role-functionalism and realizer-functionalism

capable of passing the Turing test, is being insulted by a 10 year old boy, whose mother is questioning the appropriateness of punishing him for his behavior. We cannot answer the mother's question without speculating as to what A.M. Turing and John Searle, two 20th century philosophers whose views on artificial intelligence are starkly contrasting, would say about this predicament. Furthermore, we must provide fair and balanced consideration for both theorists’ viewpoints because, ultimately, neither

posing whether a machine can replicate the cognition of a human being. Yet, some may object to the notion that Turing’s new question effectively captures the nature of machines’ capacity for thought or consciousness, such as John Searle. In his Chinese room thought experiment, Searle outlines a scenario that implies machines’ apparent replication of human cognition does not yield conscious understanding. While Searle’s Chinese thought experiment demonstrates how a Turing test is not sufficient to establish

John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument John Searle is an American Philosopher, born July 31, 1932. He is known for a widely spread argument in Philosophy called the “Chinese Room Argument”. He published his work onto paper in 1980. The argument follows that: “Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just

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

Proposed in 1980 by John Searle, the Chinese room argument attempts to understand the ability of artificial intelligence to process thought in the same way that a brain does. The current understanding of how artificial intelligence programs operate states that a computer is given a program, or “instruction manual” , and constructs replies and outputs based on a given input. In the Chinese room argument, a non Chinese speaking man simulates this process by sitting isolated inside a room, with an array

In Minds, Brains, and Programs John Searle objects to Computational Theory of Mind (CTM), particularly that running a program on a computer and manipulating symbols does not mean that the computer has understanding, or more generally a mind. In this paper I will first explain Searle’s Chinese Room, then I will explain CTM and how it relates to the Chinese Room. Following this I will describe how the Chinese Room attacks the CTM. Next I will explain the Systems Reply to the Chinese Room and how

proponents of strong AI would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does. Yet, Searle asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese symbols, looks them up on look-up table, and returns the Chinese symbols that are indicated by the table. Searle notes, of course, that he does not understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, his lack of understanding goes to show