3 ms·
I’ve not heard this argument before. Isn’t saying “there is no entity that would experience anything” begging the question? If the system is capable of understa
by sjy 6y ago
I’ve not heard this argument before. Isn’t saying “there is no entity that would experience anything” begging the question? If the system is capable of understanding, why wouldn’t it also be capable of experience? That is what we see in animals.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoNo, this is the very heart of Searle's thought experiment. His point was that you could imagine a rule-based system for language translation and conversation that clearly was not conscious. The argument wasn't about whether or not it was possible to build such a system, but about whether or not such a system must necessarily be conscious. Searle's claim was that it was clear from his thought experiment that such a system could exist without any understanding, and definitely without consciousness. Others have disagreed with his reasoning and his conclusion.
- sjy 6y agoI must have misunderstood your earlier comment then. I thought you were saying that Searle responded to ”the system does understand” argument by saying “OK, but it’s still not conscious.” Now I think you are saying his response was “no, it doesn’t understand, it merely passes the Turing test; it can’t understand because it’s clearly not conscious.” Which again, seems to beg the question.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoNo, Searle's main response to the system response was to just dismiss it out of hand (at least in the responses from him that I read). Dennett was probably (for me) the most articulate of the "system responders" and I think Searle considered his POV to be a joke, more or less.