Searle

Introduction I am going to argue that Searle is correct to claim that digital computers are not capable of genuine understanding. I believe computers are told what to do without any genuine understanding of what the computers are doing. It is impossible for a computer programmed machine to think. Word Count: 48 Exposition Searle believes that machines have no way of genuinely understanding of what they are doing. He believes that the mind and body are one and there is no way of a computer interacting

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

In the Chinese Room Argument, John Searle undermines the Turing Test. He argues that two systems can be given the same input and compute the same output, but not have the same understanding. In a scenario, we have Edgar and Allen discussing this issue. Edgar asks Allen if it were possible to create a system that by itself can be a sufficient condition of understanding. Allen responds with the knowledge of the Chinese Room Argument. Allen argues that it would not be possible because symbol manipulations

proponents of strong AI would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does. Yet, Searle asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese symbols, looks them up on look-up table, and returns the Chinese symbols that are indicated by the table. Searle notes, of course, that he does not understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, his lack of understanding goes to show

John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument John Searle is an American Philosopher, born July 31, 1932. He is known for a widely spread argument in Philosophy called the “Chinese Room Argument”. He published his work onto paper in 1980. The argument follows that: “Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just

Minds can be considered computing machines in that just as the hardware is used for the software, the brain is used for the mind. Therefore, theoretically, there is a way to produce the mind using different basal elements. Scientists have been working on a way to do just that and create robots which are simply minds similar to ours, but which use programs and algorithms instead of messages between neurons. If someone could create a program that would pass the Turing test, or in other words, be indistinguishable

In the Chinese room argument presented by John Searle, he argues that programs are not minds. Premises that Searle gives for this claim is that programs are entirely formal (syntactical) and mind have semantic. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. In this paper, I will argue that Searle’s argument is misleading us, because Searle's claim is based on that understanding (mind) occurs if and only if computer knows human language semantic. Searle’s Chinese room

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

Descartes: One of my greatest powers is the ability to think, considering that it is essentially the only thing that I am unable to doubt. Searle: I partly agree to your statement, but I observe that you are inclined to ignore the concept of technology and the wonders that it can perform. Furthermore, just as you are able to persuade other individuals in thinking that they make decisions for themselves, it is probable that someone else influences you and the decisions that you make without allowing

to prove, through the use of an imitation game, that computers can think. John Searle argued that the Turing Test is simply just imitating, rather than thinking. Based on Searle’s argument against the Turing Test, I think that computers cannot have minds. Although Turing argues that computers can think, there are many arguments, such as Searle’s Chinese room argument, and defenses that I will present that support Searle and his belief that computers do not understand the information they simulate