Chinese Room Scenario by John R. Searle Essay

- Compilation a program written in the high-level language and used as an input to a translator program

The principle of a strong AI is that an appropriately programmed computer is actually thinking, as opposed to simulating thought. © Principle is equivalent(c?) to accepting the Turing Test as the definition of thought. Which Searle would not be surprised to see that a machine still hasn’t passed. Searle’s argument is straightforward. Searle’s premise on the “Chinese Room” is that someone who understands English sitting in a room with a set of rules that tells this person how to respond to questions written in Chinese in such a way as to pass the Turing test. To Searle this person in the room doesn’t “understand” (e) Chinese. Understanding, being that real comprehension or thought isn’t existent. So to Searle, any machine that can be passed by systems, which behave in purely formal ways (eP), can be explained in purely formal ways ©, just like the Chinese Room, so it is not an adequate test. Main idea to Searle is that person answering Chinese questions is not engaged in “intentional” behavior with theses questions, and is not “thinking about”(eP? Merely reacting to a mix of emotions/past experience) the answers. Thus, the test is

The essay “Watson Doesn’t Know It Won on Jeopardy!” is a paper written by John Searle on February 23, 2011 that probes at how IBM’s computer Watson has no human understanding whatsoever. Searle begins by clearing up the common misconceptions about what a computer actually is. Searle explains that a computer is simply a machine that manipulates symbols based on a programs needs and wants, and that the computational power of a computer is not human understanding; it is in fact a measure of how fast a computer can manipulate symbols. Searle then proceeds to explain the process of how a computer works in terms of a human. He explains that a computer does not understand human language at all. A computer just has a program (in binary) that tells

Functionalism remains, to this day, one of the most influential theories of the mind. While many facets of functionalism has been tested throughout the century, one of the more interesting questions came in the form of computers. Similarly to a human brain, could computers also think? This idea was explored by John R. Searle, in his book titled, Minds, Brains, and Science. The author is a renowned American philosopher, particularly in the philosophy of language and mind, and is currently teaching at the University of California, in Berkeley (“John R. Searle,” 2014). Searle earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at Oxford, and has made several contributions to his field on topics, such as consciousness, artificial intelligence, and the problem of free will (“John R. Searle,” 2014). His “Chinese Room” experiment is known as one of the main critiques to the concept of artificial intelligence. In Searle’s book, Searle describes his thought process into this experiment during the second chapter, titled “Can Computers Think?” Searle’s purpose of this chapter in the book is to explain his perspective on the idea that digital computers will never develop the capability to form thought processes, and that a concept such as artificial intelligence could never exist, because our mental states exist in a biological manner. He utilizes his “Chinese Room” argument to aid in the development of his objectives.

While proponents of strong AI believe that machines are capable of imitating human consciousness so well that it might be perceived as actually obtaining consciousness, others such as John Searle believe otherwise. Another logical stance on the question is accepting that machines are able to behave as though it has a conscious mind physically, but also arguing that machines will never be able to possess this consciousness as though a human would. This second type of viewpoint is considered Weak Artificial Intelligence, otherwise known as narrow artificial intelligence. Weak AI is acknowledging that machines can simulate consciousness computationally, but that is different from actually obtaining consciousness.

This essay is going to discuss the article “Why Chinese is so damn hard” by David Moser. In the article, Moser employed a humorous tone to point out nine reasons why Chinese is challenging for adult foreigners like himself to learn and why Chinese is difficult itself. In the following paragraphs, I am focusing on one of the arguments Moser proposed — Chinese’s writing system “just ain’t very phonetic”, and will present my opinions on the wordings he used and the presentation of the issue.

If the man can internalize the entire system, it can be assumed that he has the ability to hear/see Chinese characters, submit them to his ‘knowledge’ of the rules, and say/write Chinese characters in return. In this way, he (the system) can mimic the understanding of the Chinese characters as well as any native Chinese speaker. What then is the difference? The system’s understanding is in its knowledge of how to respond. The man in the box functions as a brain in his process of internalizing the prompt, searching for the stored information and responding while the input and output functions provide connections with the outside world. Almost all creatures that we acknowledge have understanding possess the ability to recognize an input, respond to it and act accordingly. Thus, the system mimics the behavioral instincts of a living organism that understands. In behaviorist thought, this must mean that the system possesses some form of understanding and awareness. There is no evidence to support that a system that is indistinguishable from us in this way has no intentionality, even if that behavior is coded. Obviously, no such programmer has accomplished the seemingly impossible feat to mimic a human flawlessly, but in there is no evidence to support its impossibility. This then lends itself to the conclusion that although it is not

Through this piece of evidence it is established that even though the machines argue logically they cannot argue properly without warming up their brain plates. Their brain plates are not perfect though they call themselves superior to man. Though they are intelligent they will always be dependent on human intelligence because the humans are the ones that created them.

One argument states that intelligent machines, otherwise known as AI, or Artificial Intelligence, are good at both low-skill jobs and extremely precise jobs and they work better and faster than humans since they

The Chinese room is an experiment by Searle to reject the Turing theory that a machine can be intelligent. He asks if a machine has an intelligent conversation, does it mean it really has the ability to think, and understands what it says? He imagined himself in a room. He has a book can instruct him to get the meaning of Chinese questions, and answer them correctly. If a Chinese speaker outside the room asks a question (All Chinese language), Searle can find the answer from the book and respond it. His point is that although he knows nothing about Chinese language, he can answer all the questions in a manner that it seems he knows Chinese language. The point of Searle’s Chinese room argument is that a machine can easily pass the test if it is programmed. The test shows that even if the computer answers all the questions fast and correct, does not mean it can think the same as we

If the questioner couldn’t tell the difference between the texts, the test would be passed, meaning the machine has intelligence. Even Though Caleb isn't doing the original Turing test, since he is viewing Ava’s actions, as she answers the questions. “For Turing, there is nothing more to being intelligent than being able to use language as we do(taken from Doing Philosophy, Lewis Vaughn).” This states that Ava is intelligent since it’s stated in the movie that she is born with language and demonstrates it throughout the sessions with Caleb. Although Ava can clearly pass the Turing test without a doubt, John Searle denies that it takes any intelligence to pass the Turing test. A thought experiment, called Searle’s Chinese Room, where a human is put in the computer's spot and given an input in Chinese with no knowledge of that language, just a rulebook which translates the symbols into english. The job of that person is to give an output that makes sense to the input given by using the rulebook. Like a computer or this case Ava, the human put to the test manipulated the symbols, but added no meaning to the symbol. According to Searle, “computers manipulate symbols on the basis of their physical features or form, whereas humans manipulate symbols on the basis of their meaning or content(taken from Doing Philosophy, Lewis

The Chinese Room Argument is Searle's refutation of Strong Artificial Intelligence. The idea will be that we have an entity that will pass a Turing Test, but which clearly lacks intelligence, therefore it represents Weak Artificial Intelligence. The Chinese Room argument Searle created has an English speaker in a room with chinese writing and symbols and rules in English for translating a words into a symbol. Just because the person can translate a symbol into a word does not make the room intelligent. The answers come out right, but that

The Turing Test is a test described by Alan Turing to define whether a robot has indistinguishable human intelligence or behaviour. John Searle attempts to disprove the theory of the Turing Test through his Chinese Room thought experiment. In this experiment, Searle proposes that a man unwittingly communicates to a native speaker through the use of a program. Searle presents the prepositions that artificial intelligence is solely syntactic and do not constitute conscious “intention”- that the man in the room did not display knowledge yet communicates through rules and functions. Through the Chinese Room experiment, Searle attempts to refute functionalism through the definitions of semantics, intentions, and simulation. However, Searle does not clearly distinguish the definitions and aspects of the implications of his arguments against the Turing Test; ultimately, this leads to lack of context and failure to account for all cases against the Test.

Ticks: That’s all interesting, but have you heard of the Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment? It’s a thought experiment that basically implies that genuine intelligence in AI is impossible to achieve. It’s the thought that, since computer programs are purely symbolic, aren’t capable of genuinely understanding the semantics of objects.

If Strong AI is true, then there is a program for Chinese such that if any computing system runs that program, that system thereby comes to understand Chinese.