The Chinese Room Argument

907 Words2 Pages

John Searle formulated the Chinese Room Argument in the early 80’s as an attempt to prove that computers are not cognitive operating systems. In short though the immergence of artificial and computational systems has rapidly increased the infinite possibility of knowledge, Searle uses the Chinese room argument to shown that computers are not cognitively independent.

John Searle developed two areas of thought concerning the independent cognition of computers. These ideas included the definition of a weak AI and a strong AI. In essence, these two types of AI have their fundamental differences. The weak AI was defined as a system, which simply were systems that simulations of the human mind and AI systems that were characterized as an AI system that is completely capable of cognitive processes such as consciousness and intentionality, as well as understanding. He utilizes the argument of the Chinese room to show that the strong AI does not exist.

The Chinese Argument is based on the premise that a person who cannot speak Chinese may indeed learn and become literate in Chinese by being exposed to it in a room with symbols that are representative of the Chinese language. It is important to point out that the Chinese Room Argument is a thought experiment. It proposes that if a person is placed in a room fed Chinese symbols he will be able to speak Chinese. It is important to point out in this person must have no prior knowledge of the Chinese language and must manipulate the symbols based on how a computer would respond. Hypothetically, by following a set of rules, the person would be able to answer questions in Chinese. The processing skills would be mandated by a set of rules provided to the person. The rules would repre...

... middle of paper ...

...e and codes. With the continued advancement in computer technology, this entire argument though seemingly convincing, may in the future become a mute point. It is interesting that this argument has generated so much interest over the years. Undoubtedly, this argument is not with without fault yet, it still stands to substantiate beliefs that computers are not cognitively independent.

Works Cited

Searle, J. (1980), "Minds, brains, and programs", The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 417-457.

Searle, J. (1990a), "Is the brain's mind a computer program?” Scientific American 262(1):26-31.

Bridgeman, B. (1980), Reply to: "Minds, brains, and programs", The B.B.S. 3, p. 427.

Searle, J. (1980), "Minds, brains, and programs", The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, p. 423.

Lycan, W. G. (1980) Reply to: "Minds, brains, and programs", The B.B.S. 3, p. 431.

Show More
Related

  • Views on Computationalism: Clark vs. Searle

    1315 Words  | 3 Pages

    Andy Clark strongly argues for the theory that computers have the potential for being intelligent beings in his work “Mindware: Meat Machines.” The support Clark uses to defend his claims states the similar comparison of humans and machines using an array of symbols to perform functions. The main argument of his work can be interpreted as follows:

    Read More

  • William Lycan's Response to John Searle

    801 Words  | 2 Pages

    Both Searle and Lycan agree that individual objects within a system cannot be considered thinking.  In other words, both Searle and Lycan believe that in the example of the Chinese room, the man does not understand the language by himself.  It is very obvious to Lycan that an object as part of a system cannot understand or think on its own.  He argues that it must be part of a greater system which as a whole system can understand the Chinese.   It is this whole system that understands.  Lycan criticizes Searle for looking to much at the individual parts of a system and not at the system as a whole.  Lycan even pokes fun at Searle when he says, "Neither my stomach nor Searle's liver nor a thermostat nor a light switch has beliefs and desires."  The man who responds in Chinese using the "data banks" of Chinese symbols is, according to Lycan, understanding as part of a system.  Although as an individual, the man is unable to "understand" Chinese, he can, as a whole system understand it.

    Read More

  • The Relationship Between the Transactional Model, and the General Adaptation Syndrome

    1591 Words  | 4 Pages

    Gross, R (2010). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour. 6th ed. London: Hodder Education. p188.

    Read More

  • John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

    1990 Words  | 4 Pages

    The purpose of this paper is to present John Searle’s Chinese room argument in which it challenges the notions of the computational paradigm, specifically the ability of intentionality. Then I will outline two of the commentaries following, the first by Bruce Bridgeman, which is in opposition to Searle and uses the super robot to exemplify his point. Then I will discuss John Eccles’ response, which entails a general agreement with Searle with a few objections to definitions and comparisons. My own argument will take a minimalist computational approach delineating understanding and its importance to the concepts of the computational paradigm.

    Read More

  • John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

    825 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Searle’s Chinese room argument from his work “Minds, Brains, and Programs” was a thought experiment against the premises of strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). The premises of conclude that something is of the strong AI nature if it can understand and it can explain how human understanding works. I will argue that the Chinese room argument successfully disproves the conclusion of strong AI, however, it does not provide an explanation of what understanding is which becomes problematic when creating a distinction between humans and machines.

    Read More

  • Baddeley and Hitch’s Working Memory Model

    1141 Words  | 3 Pages

    Passer, M., Smith, R., Holt, N., Bremner, A., Sutherland, E., & Vliek, M. (2009). Psychology; Science of Mind and Behaviour. (European Edition). New York.

    Read More

  • John Searle's Can Computers Think?

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    Computers are machines that take syntactical information only and then function based on a program made from syntactical information. They cannot change the function of that program unless formally stated to through more information. That is inherently different from a human mind, in that a computer never takes semantic information into account when it comes to its programming. Searle’s formal argument thus amounts to that brains cause minds. Semantics cannot be derived from syntax alone. Computers are defined by a formal structure, in other words, a syntactical structure. Finally, minds have semantic content. The argument then concludes that the way the mind functions in the brain cannot be likened to running a program in a computer, and programs themselves are insufficient to give a system thought. (Searle, p.682) In conclusion, a computer cannot think and the view of strong AI is false. Further evidence for this argument is provided in Searle’s Chinese Room thought-experiment. The Chinese Room states that I, who does not know Chinese, am locked in a room that has several baskets filled with Chinese symbols. Also in that room is a rulebook that specifies the various manipulations of the symbols purely based on their syntax, not their semantics. For example, a rule might say move the squiggly

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Turing's Test For Machine Intelligence

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I will evaluate and present A.M. Turing’s test for machine intelligence and describe how the test works. I will explain how the Turing test is a good way to answer if machines can think. I will also discuss Objection (4) the argument from Consciousness and Objection (6) Lady Lovelace’s Objection and how Turing responded to both of the objections. And lastly, I will give my opinion on about the Turing test and if the test is a good way to answer if a machine can think.

    Read More

  • Fodor's Functionalism

    1311 Words  | 3 Pages

    At the end of chapter two, Searle summarizes his criticism of functionalism in the following way. The mental processes of a mind are caused entirely by processes occurring inside the brain. There is no external cause that determines what a mental process will be. Also, there is a distinction between the identification of symbols and the understanding of what the symbols mean. Computer programs are defined by symbol identification rather than understanding. On the other hand, minds define mental processes by the understanding of what a symbol means. The conclusion leading from this is that computer programs by themselves are not minds and do not have minds. In addition, a mind cannot be the result of running a computer program. Therefore, minds and computer programs are not entities with the same mental state. They are quite different and although they both are capable of input and output interactions, only the mind is capable of truly thinking and understanding. This quality is what distinguishes the mental state of a mind from the systemic state of a digital computer.

    Read More

  • Blindly Obeying Authority

    1789 Words  | 4 Pages

    From an American Psychologist. Vol. 19, pp. 848-852, 1964.

    Read More

  • The Oedipus Complex - Sigmund Freud vs. Jacques Lacan

    1388 Words  | 3 Pages

    Davis, Tom. The Theories of the Mind Lectures. Ed. G. Baston. Birmingham University. 9 Nov. 2000

    Read More

  • Can Machines Think?

    2586 Words  | 6 Pages

    ...lligent, intentional activity taking place inside the room and the digital computer. The proponents of Searle’s argument, however, would counter that if there is an entity which does computation, such as human being or computer, it cannot understand the meanings of the symbols it uses. They maintain that digital computers do not understand the input given in or the output given out. But it cannot be claimed that the digital computers as whole cannot understand. Someone who only inputs data, being only a part of the system, cannot know about the system as whole. If there is a person inside the Chinese room manipulating the symbols, the person is already intentional and has a mental state, thus, due to the seamless integration of their systems of hardware and software that understand the inputs and outputs as whole systems, digital computers too have states of mind.

    Read More

  • The Philosophy of Cognitive Science

    2160 Words  | 5 Pages

    Gardner, H. The Mind's New Science: A History of Cognitive Revolution. New York, Basic Books, 1987.

    Read More

  • Artificial Intelligence and its Effects on Business

    1711 Words  | 4 Pages

    Crevier, D. (1999). AI: The tumultuous history of the search for Artificial Intelligence. Basic Books: New York.

    Read More

  • The Human Brain versus Computers

    645 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the past few decades we have seen how computers are becoming more and more advance, challenging the abilities of the human brain. We have seen computers doing complex assignments like launching of a rocket or analysis from outer space. But the human brain is responsible for, thought, feelings, creativity, and other qualities that make us humans. So the brain has to be more complex and more complete than any computer. Besides if the brain created the computer, the computer cannot be better than the brain. There are many differences between the human brain and the computer, for example, the capacity to learn new things. Even the most advance computer can never learn like a human does. While we might be able to install new information onto a computer it can never learn new material by itself. Also computers are limited to what they “learn”, depending on the memory left or space in the hard disk not like the human brain which is constantly learning everyday. Computers can neither make judgments on what they are “learning” or disagree with the new material. They must accept into their memory what it’s being programmed onto them. Besides everything that is found in a computer is based on what the human brain has acquired though experience.

    Read More

More about The Chinese Room Argument

Open Document