A Conversation for John Searle's 'Chinese Room' Argument

We simulate thinking too...

Post 1

U128068

Surely we do just the same. Our program is just more advanced and makes us think we understand what we are doing.

The process of understanding is being done by the program. The machine running the program doesn't need to understand what the program does.

Do you think that our visual cortex knows it is looking at a computer monitor, or is it just interpreting data.

Our brain is the man in the room, our brain runs the program. Our program is cteated by adapting basic reactions to fit the best outcomes of past situations, the program is "intelligent".

There is no differance.

The problem with the Chinese room is that it assumes that the intelligence should be in the man, rather it should be in the intsructions on the cards.

If someone works out an answer on a calculator we wouldn't say "That is an atificial answer and doesn't count unless worked out by a human."

Sometimes we look for intelligence in the wrong place.


We simulate thinking too...

Post 2

Oragami

""Sometimes we look for intelligence in the wrong place""

Yes!! Dont we.


We simulate thinking too...

Post 3

U128068

inteligence and education are not the same thing. I never claimed to be educated


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more