John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

Human beings not only have the ability to think but also have imitation that can help them to think comprehensively. Other species may have the ability to think but they do not have the ability to think about things in different ways. Blackmore mentions “we use the word learning for simple association or classical conditioning (which almost all animals can do), for learning by trial and error or operant conditioning (which many animals can do) and for learning by imitation (which almost none can do). ”(34). The imitation is the ability for people to think in different and more comprehensive ways. When people think, they can not only think in their own way but also think by other’s ways. This ability makes human beings unique because if they can think in different ways they can get more information, which can help them make the decision. Human beings’ thinking also has the peculiarity, which is hard be imitated. Blackmore points out “Computers may not play chess in the same way as humans, but their success show how wrong we can be about intelligence”(32). Human thinking is hard to copy because it is a very comprehensive process. It is hard to copy even though for the AI, which made by human beings. The computers do not have the ability to imitate, thus the computer may be able to get the win in the chess game, but they can never get the ability and skill about

would agree that yes, categorically, a machine could be conscious. But is it really that simple? I

“I used to worry that computers would become so powerful and sophisticated as to take the place of the human minds,” expresses Lewis Thomas, the author of “The Corner of the Eye” [Thomas, 83]. A large part of Thomas’s fear of computers is due to the fact that “a large enough machine can do all sorts of intelligent things beyond our capacities” [Thomas, 83]. However, computers cannot replace us; he realizes computers cannot do some of the things that we can do, like being human. We like to be equivocal, imaginative, and self-conscious. Computers are the complete opposite of the traits that define us as human; or as Thomas states it, “they are not designed, as we are, for ambiguity” [Thomas, 83]. As witnessed by history, the present, and soon the future, it would be self-evident truth that computers will not take over us or be “us”.

The documentary Alien of the Deep Sea presented us with six different experiments aimed at studying different aspects of octopuses' intelligence. I will focus on just one of those experiments and attempt to apply Jackendoff's First Fundamental Argument which argues that a language user's mind can be viewed as an internal computational system containing unconscious set of rules.

If we look at the definition of consciousness, which implies that ‘one has to be aware of all its surroundings and wellbeing’ then machines can certainly not be conscious; as they have all the operations and data already programmed in them by some external forces and are only aware of those situations which have

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

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.

Yet, CR experiment blatantly assumes that a person who speaks Chinese can pass meaningful messages to a person who does not speak the same language in a room and, and by following a purely algorithmic or formalised process, are meaningfully and humanely responding, even if this requires using look-up tables, following preset rules, etc. (Cole n.p.; Anon). However, this irreducible intuition argument does not hold for Searle. The strongest objection to the CR theory from this standpoint is that if the person in the room can communicate with the outside person and be thought of as indistinguishable from intelligence, even though the receiving person does not truly understand that the semantic gap is bridged by a completely formal process, then hasn’t Searle completely reduced semantics to syntax? And if so, it seems that Searle argues for exactly the point he is attempting to refute, namely that computers are – at least theoretically – capable of being programmed to such an extent that they have reached a functional level of complexity such that it can be deemed as having a “human mind” (Turing 2004; Anon).

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.

Alan Turing put this argument forward in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence”. His opening pages of the paper begin with the words; "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?” (Alan Turing 1950). My main argument to this is that a computer does not have the ability to think, primarily because it was created rather than ‘born and raised’.

* Developments in computer science would lead to parallels being drawn between human thought and the computational functionality of computers, opening entirely new areas of psychological thought. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon spent years developing the concept of artificial intelligence (AI) and later worked with cognitive psychologists regarding the implications of AI. The effective result was more of a framework conceptualization of mental functions with

Artificial intelligence is “the capability of a device to perform functions that are normally associated with human intelligence, such as reasoning and manipulating factual and heuristic knowledge, including the ability to make decisions, understand language, and respond to outside stimuli.” (Hosea, Harikrishnan, Rajkumar 124). Today’s artificial intelligence is in its early stages, there are only a few systems that are able to reach the requirements to categorize these systems as intelligent. Thoughts and emotions are the two things that have

In his paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Alan Turing sets out to answer the question of whether machines can think in the same humans can by conceptualizing the question in concrete terms. In simple terms, Turing redefines the question by 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 that a machine can possess consciousness or thought, this argument does not prove that machines are absolutely incapable of consciousness or thought. Rather, given the ongoing uncertainty of the debate regarding the intelligence of machines, there can be no means to confirm or disconfirm the conscious experience of machines as well as the consciousness of humans by extension of that principle.

On his essay “Can machines think?” Alan Turing, a great mathematician, and creator of the Turing Test presents us with the initial concept of what is now considered artificial intelligence. He states that eventually, as time progresses, machines will be able to think like humans. But, can a machine really think like a human? Can a machine even think on its own, or it is just based on human science and engineering to make computer systems perform tasks that require intelligence when done by humans?

In the future, we may be able to build a computer that is comparable to the human brain, but not until we truly understand one thing. Lewis Thomas talks about this in his essay, "Computers." He says, "It is in our collective behavior that we are most mysterious. We won't be able to construct machines like ourselves until we've understood this, and we're not even close" (Thomas 473). Thomas wrote this essay in 1974, and although we have made many technological advances