Searle

John Searle is an American philosopher who was known for creating the thought experiment, the Chinese room for challenging the idea of strong AI and functionalism. Searle’s work, Minds, Brains and Programs introduces the Chinese room and refutes some objections to the points he brings up. The Chinese room was created in order to refute the idea of strong AI and the functionalist theory of mind and is described as follows. Imagine a computer program that can be told a short story and make inferences

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

In “Minds, Brains and Programs” by John R. Searle exposed his opinion about how computers can not have Artificial intelligence (Al). Searle portraits this claim about computers through an experiment he created called the “Chinese Room” where he shows that computers are not independent operating systems and that they do not have minds. In order to understand better the experiment Searle demonstrates the contrast between strong and weak Al, which later through my paper I will explain what this means

Johnson Lai (400014979) TA: Andrew Lavigne Philos 1E03 Searle 's Chinese Room 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

experiment where he describes a scenario of himself inside a locked up room. In this room Searle is given a batch of Chinese writing or in other words the script, a second batch of Chinese writing which is the story with a set of rules in English, and questions in Chinese with English rules. Of course with Searle being a monolingual English speaker he has inability to comprehend the Chinese language. Therefore, Searle uses the given English set of rule to correlates one set of formal symbols with another

The Chinese Room is a mental experiment, originally proposed by John Searle and popularized by Roger Penrose, which attempts to counter the validity of the Turing Test and the belief that a machine can come to think. Searle faces the analogy between mind and computer when it comes to addressing the issue of consciousness. The mind involves not only the manipulation of symbols, but also has a syntax and a semantics. Searle in his Mind, Brain and programs text, attacks this thought, and with the

In his paper “Minds, brains, and programs”, Searle makes an argument against the theory of strong AI, which states that running a program is sufficient for understanding. This view on strong AI is very closely connected to the theory of computationalism, which claims that the mind is like a computer, and that thinking is something as simple as symbol manipulation and providing outputs in response to corresponding input. Searle claims that this belief is unreasonable, and proves it with his “Chinese

In Minds, Brains, and Programs, John Searle provided various counterarguments to the proposition that strong artificial intelligence is similar to human cognition and that machines are able to have similar cognitive experiences as humans, such as having intentions, as long as it has the right program. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate opposing approaches, which outlined that the theory of strong AI is flawed. The author did this by providing examples of how to disqualify the support

wrong, but from different assumptions. Kim accuses Searle of “Causal Over-Determination.” He sees Searle as claiming that not only does m(F) cause m(G), but also that F causes G in an equally real way. Since m(G) is the true cause of G, the F to G causation must be illusory. Searle could likewise accuse Kim of “Causal Over-Distinction,” arguing that m(F) is indistinguishable from F, and in that both together as one cause [m(G)+G]. In addition, Searle would say that Kim is making a fundamental mistake

One can say that John Searle and Jean-Paul Sartre have a plethora of beliefs in common yet really none at all. If they were assessing each other’s views, they would agree and disagree on their stances on different topics. While Searle may believe one thing some