3 ms·
The person in the room will also start to recognize patterns in the input messages and the resulting output messages. It isn't the canonical understanding of Ch
by rjsw 8y ago
The person in the room will also start to recognize patterns in the input messages and the resulting output messages. It isn't the canonical understanding of Chinese but it is "an" understanding
If Searle was correct we could do an MRI on a blind person and detect when their brain switched into "symbol processing mode" if a conversation with them covered any visual concepts.
- ForHackernews 8y ago> If Searle was correct we could do an MRI on a blind person and detect when their brain switched into "symbol processing mode" if a conversation with them covered any visual concepts. I think that is true, at least to some extent: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3667661/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3667661/ particularly for people who weren't blind from birth.
- mannykannot 8y agoThe Chinese Room argument fails to make its case, but not for that reason - Searle claims that no such instruction book could be written, and so the experiment could not be performed, meaning that the subject would have no possibility of learning from the outputs generated by performing it. If the experiment could be started, whatever the subject would learn from performing the role would be moot, as merely by getting started, without the subject initially knowing anything of the language in which the questions were posed, it would have refuted Searle. The reason the argument fails to make its case is that Searle does not have an effective response to the 'systems reply': in the paper, his response is a mixture of appeals to intuition, together with the erroneous claim that if the subject memorized the instructions, then the systems reply would not apply.