Searle's Chinese Room Analysis

One of Cartesian Dualism’s principal merits is its alignment with common sense. Specifically, it supports our basic intuition that there is more to us than our physical bodies. This intuition is apparent in how we talk. When we say “I feel sad” or “I want to go on vaction”, we are not referring to the states of

One of the hottest topics that modern science has been focusing on for a long time is the field of artificial intelligence, the study of intelligence in machines or, according to Minsky, “the science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by men”.(qtd in Copeland 1). Artificial Intelligence has a lot of applications and is used in many areas. “We often don’t notice it but AI is all around us. It is present in computer games, in the cruise control in our cars and the servers that route our email.” (BBC 1). Different goals have been set for the science of Artificial Intelligence, but according to Whitby the most mentioned idea about the goal of AI is provided by the Turing Test. This test is also called the

At 10:18pm on Saturday, December 3, 2016 RA Tyler Shaw was on his round on the second floor of Hanby when he was going to confront a noise violation in Hanby 220 when he heard a person in the room chanting, “chug” and could smell the alcohol emanating from the room. RA Shaw then contacted OPD and RA Shania Zeigler for backup since there was another alcohol violation on the floor. RA Shaw waited to approach the situation until backup was present. Once OPD Office TJ Frazee and RA Zeigler arrived, we saw Hanby Resident James Heaton leave the room. RA Shaw knocked on the door and they could just hear the guest of the room hiding the alcohol. When they answered the door, Garst Resident Colton Hann, Non-Otterbein Student Chris Levette, Non-Otterbein

In particular, in 1974, Ned Block created the China Brain thought experiment to criticize functionalism and variable realizability. Supposed that the entire population of China was ordered to simulate the working of a single brain, with each person acting as a neuron. To simulate neuron firing, each individual is handed a two-way radio and unique instructions on whom to contact depending on who called him or her. All of this would then be connected to a body, which would provide the sensory input and express the behavioral output for the China “Brain”. Block argues that since this brain contains sensory input, behavioral output and internal mental states, the China brain would be consciousness since it contains all of the elements of a functionalist description of the mind. However, Block thinks that it would be absurd for the China Brain to have any sort of experiences at all. It just doesn’t seem intuitively correct for this being to have consciousness or be able to experience qualia. Thus, Block argues that functionalism and variable realizability are

This argument goes against the dualists’ agreement that the mental state is an immaterial substance which is different from the brain. The simplicity argument holds that the mental state is affected by the activities going on in the physical brain. According to Dennett, the events taking place in the mental are a correspondence of the events taking place in the brain at the same time and therefore the brain and mind cannot be distinct from each other5. Even though dualists argue that the interactions or correspondences are as a result of two different things namely the brain and mind, the materialists have a simpler explanation. Materialists believe that the events happening in the mental are the same neurological activities taking place in the brain and therefore mind and matter are not two different things. Searle explains that if mind and matter are not different things there is no way the mind can be connected to a spirit that is not in physical

In addition, Searle would say that Kim is making a fundamental mistake in thinking of mental states as being caused by physical states (related temporally), rather than existing simultaneously. This limits Kim’s thinking, as two events related causally in this way cannot by definition be the same event. Searle suggests that we include a sort of “permanent causation,” by which molecular structures doesn’t cause hardness, but rather is hardness.

Dualism and monism is a famous philosophy topic from ancient to now. The word "Dualism" means that our physical and our mental are independent. And our body and our mind cannot be the same. It is because of mind and body is two separate substances. In the contract, the "monism" means that both of the physical and mental are combined being one. And our mind and body are indivisible and are each influenced by the other. The monism and dualism individually has its strengths and weaknesses.

In 1983 Jerry Fodor opened the introduction to his new research of “Modularity of mind” with the phrase; “Behavior is organized, but the organization of behavior is merely derivative”. This meaning that behaviors are simply imitations, never original nor created. Fodor created a theory of how the mind was structured and how would perform. He studied the architecture of mind in modules; a term that will describe that the mind had different specific structures that had precise purposes. Jesse J. Prinz just like Fodor was a philosopher who was in opposition of the “Modularity of the mind” theory. This essay will have as a purpose to create an argument on the explanation and disagreement that Prinz wrote cluster by cluster against the theory “Modularity of mind” in an article called “Is the mind really modular?”

of substances”: the human body and soul have been understood as being two completely separate substances. Consequently, both the relationship between them and man’s lived presence would have become totally incomprehensible. It was claimed that this dualism of substances was the unmistakable symptom of metaphysical thought, which would possibly mean that the very presence of metaphysics is indicative of a serious case of misapprehension or deviation1. However, the very idea of “Cartesian dualism” may be viewed as a locus obscurus in the philosophical thought. It is an obscure place not only because it has been inadequately examined or debated. Rather because recent history has accepted it completely as the symbolic thesis of a whole tradition of thought. Therefore, it is not surprising to find references

Searle argues that there is compatibilism, in that we are determined physically, like everything else in the universe, however, we are free in the psychological sense. This brings me back to my previous question, how can Searle claim that the psychological state is distinct from the physical state? In his mind body solution, he clearly states that the brain is not anything special other than mass and that consciousness and mental states arise out of the brain’s functions. This seems completely contrary to his argument for freedom. This is severely confusing, after solving the mind body problem, he proceeds to again separate the mind and body into two categories falling into the same trap the duelists do. My problem with his argument is largely based on the fact that the mind and the body are the same entity. Both are physical beings, mental states in the brain and also intentions should also be considered physical things sense they are the things that arise out of the processes of a physical thing, the brain. Furthermore, if both of these entities are physical things, then it would seem that we are determined beings. If I am correct, then Searle would also consent to this, given that both the brain and its processes are considered physical beings. Searle consents to the idea that physical bodies are deterministic therefore if I were

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.

The Representational Theory of Mind proposes that we, as both physiological and mental beings, are systems which operate based on symbols and interpretations of the meanings of such symbols rather than beings which operate just on physiological processes (chemical reactions and biological processes). It offers that humans and their Minds are computing machines, mental software (the Mind) which runs on physical hardware (the body). It suggests, too, that we are computing machines functioning as something other than a computing machine, just as every other machine does.

ABSTRACT: Cartesian dualism and the union of mind and body are often understood as conceptions that contradict each other. Diachronic interpretations maintain that Descartes was first a dualist (in the Meditations) and later on developed his stance on the union of mind and body (Passions). Some authors find here a problem without solution. Nevertheless, in the last two decades, some interpretations have been developed intending to give a positive solution to the difficult relation between Cartesian dualism and the union of mind and body. The problem that I find in most of them is that they try to show no incoherence between Descartes' dualism and his conception of the union and

* 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

Blumers third premise is that these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things encounters. Integrationist’s describe thinking as an inner conversation. Mead called this inner dialogue minding. Minding is the two second delay while we mentally rehearse our next move, anticipate others reactions. We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a difficult situation. Mead believed that animals act instinctively and without deliberation. Integrationist’s believe that humans require social stimulation and exposure to abstract symbol systems to embark upon conceptual thought processes that characterize our species. Without the symbolic interaction that learning a language requires, we wouldn’t be able to think though our responses, we’d only react. Symbolic interaction, whether verbal or nonverbal, activates our cognitive ability for inner dialogue that, once switched on, won’t shut down.( Em Griffin/Andrew Ledbetter/Glenn Sparks pg.57) For example as kids we play roles, whether it’s like our parents or someone imaginary. As an adult we still put ourselves in the place of others and act as they would act. Mead was convinced that thinking is the mental conversation we hold with others, always with an eye toward how they might see us and react to what we might do.