4 ms·

Everyone agrees that the man doesn't understand Chinese. The sleight of hand is that Searle compares a full computer to a component of the Chinese Room, when he

Everyone agrees that the man doesn't understand Chinese. The sleight of hand is that Searle compares a full computer to a component of the Chinese Room, when he should be comparing a computer to the room as a whole. The man in this thought experiment is analogous to an internal component of a computer, not the whole thing. Put another way, Searle separates a "computer" from the instructions it is running, but there is no such separation. It's like separating a brain from the electrical brain activity. It's true that a brain without electrical activity cannot understand Chinese just like a computer without a program cannot, but that's not a very interesting observation.

mjburgess 5y ago
A computer is just an implementation of a function (in mathematical sense), ie., a finite set of pairs (IN, OUT) where (IN, OUT) in {0,1}^N, {0,1}^N. Ie., its an implementation of {010101, ...} -> {010101010, 01010...} . If we all agree that the function the man performs can be set to be whatever you wish (ie., any {input sentences} -> {output sentences}) and we agree that the man doesnt understand chinese... then the question arises: what is missing? I dont think the "systems reply" actually deals with this point -- it rather just "assumes it does" by "assuming some system" to be specified. If using a language isnt equivalent to a finite computable function -- what is it? The systems reply needs to include that the reason a reply is given is that the system is caused to give the reply by the relevant causal history / environment / experiences. Ie., that the system says "it's sunny" because it has been acquainted with the sun, and it observes that the day is sunny. This shows the "systems reply" prima facie fails: it is no reply at all to "presume that the system can be so-implemented so as to make the systems reply correct". You actually need to show it can be so-implemented. No one has done this. There are lots of reasons to suppose it can be done, not least, that most things arent computable (ie., via non-determinism, chaos, and the like). Given the environment is chaotic, it is a profoundly open question whether computers can be built to "respond to the right causes" and computational systems may be incapable of doing this. If they cannot, then searle is right. That man, and whatever he may be a part of, will never understand chinese. It is insufficient to "look up the answers", "proper causation" is required.
- burkaman 5y ago
  What is missing is the man's ability to memorize the function and carry it out without the book. If he could, and the function truly produced a normal response to any Chinese phrase in existence, then he would speak Chinese. Edit: He would speak Chinese, but he wouldn't understand it. What is missing in order to understand Chinese is an additional program that translates Chinese to English or pictures or some abstract structure independent of language. Humans have this, but the function in this thought experiment is a black box, so we don't know if it uses an intermediate representation. Thanks to colinmhayes for pointing this out. Could he give a reasoned answer to "what is the weather"? That depends on whether we include external stimuli as part of the function input. If not, then neither a human nor a computer could give a sensible answer beyond "I don't know". I see now that your issue is really with the function - could a function ever exist that gives responses based on history/environment/experience. My understanding is that such a function is the premise of the thought experiment; it's a hypothetical we accept in order to have this discussion. Searle claims that even if such a function exists, the computer still doesn't truly understand. But if that's what we're asking, my answer would be yes, as long as history/environment/experience are inputs as well. Of course a computer locked away in a room only receiving questions as input can never give a real answer to "what is the weather", just like a human in that situation couldn't. But if we expand our Chinese Room test to include that type of question and also allow the room or computer to take its environment as input, then it can give answers caused by its environment. > You actually need to show it can be so-implemented. No one has done this. I mean, fair enough. It's fine to say "I won't believe it until I see it", but that pretty much ends the discussion. If we want to talk about whether something not yet achieved is possible, then we need to be willing to imagine things that don't exist yet.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    > If he could, and the function truly produced a normal response to any Chinese phrase in existence, then he would speak Chinese I don't necessarily disagree, but it's not so simple. Just because the man speaks chinese doesn't mean he understands it. He could have figured out the proper output for every possible input without knowing what any of it means. If the next person asks in English "what did you talk about with the last person?" what would he answer, assuming he also speaks english? Really the question comes down to if the computer is able to write the book by observing I guess, but even then you could conceive of a different book with instructions on how to write the translation book.

mjburgess 5y ago

A computer is just an implementation of a function (in mathematical sense), ie., a finite set of pairs (IN, OUT) where (IN, OUT) in {0,1}^N, {0,1}^N. Ie., its an implementation of {010101, ...} -> {010101010, 01010...} . If we all agree that the function the man performs can be set to be whatever you wish (ie., any {input sentences} -> {output sentences}) and we agree that the man doesnt understand chinese... then the question arises: what is missing? I dont think the "systems reply" actually deals with this point -- it rather just "assumes it does" by "assuming some system" to be specified. If using a language isnt equivalent to a finite computable function -- what is it? The systems reply needs to include that the reason a reply is given is that the system is caused to give the reply by the relevant causal history / environment / experiences. Ie., that the system says "it's sunny" because it has been acquainted with the sun, and it observes that the day is sunny. This shows the "systems reply" prima facie fails: it is no reply at all to "presume that the system can be so-implemented so as to make the systems reply correct". You actually need to show it can be so-implemented. No one has done this. There are lots of reasons to suppose it can be done, not least, that most things arent computable (ie., via non-determinism, chaos, and the like). Given the environment is chaotic, it is a profoundly open question whether computers can be built to "respond to the right causes" and computational systems may be incapable of doing this. If they cannot, then searle is right. That man, and whatever he may be a part of, will never understand chinese. It is insufficient to "look up the answers", "proper causation" is required.

burkaman 5y ago
What is missing is the man's ability to memorize the function and carry it out without the book. If he could, and the function truly produced a normal response to any Chinese phrase in existence, then he would speak Chinese. Edit: He would speak Chinese, but he wouldn't understand it. What is missing in order to understand Chinese is an additional program that translates Chinese to English or pictures or some abstract structure independent of language. Humans have this, but the function in this thought experiment is a black box, so we don't know if it uses an intermediate representation. Thanks to colinmhayes for pointing this out. Could he give a reasoned answer to "what is the weather"? That depends on whether we include external stimuli as part of the function input. If not, then neither a human nor a computer could give a sensible answer beyond "I don't know". I see now that your issue is really with the function - could a function ever exist that gives responses based on history/environment/experience. My understanding is that such a function is the premise of the thought experiment; it's a hypothetical we accept in order to have this discussion. Searle claims that even if such a function exists, the computer still doesn't truly understand. But if that's what we're asking, my answer would be yes, as long as history/environment/experience are inputs as well. Of course a computer locked away in a room only receiving questions as input can never give a real answer to "what is the weather", just like a human in that situation couldn't. But if we expand our Chinese Room test to include that type of question and also allow the room or computer to take its environment as input, then it can give answers caused by its environment. > You actually need to show it can be so-implemented. No one has done this. I mean, fair enough. It's fine to say "I won't believe it until I see it", but that pretty much ends the discussion. If we want to talk about whether something not yet achieved is possible, then we need to be willing to imagine things that don't exist yet.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > If he could, and the function truly produced a normal response to any Chinese phrase in existence, then he would speak Chinese I don't necessarily disagree, but it's not so simple. Just because the man speaks chinese doesn't mean he understands it. He could have figured out the proper output for every possible input without knowing what any of it means. If the next person asks in English "what did you talk about with the last person?" what would he answer, assuming he also speaks english? Really the question comes down to if the computer is able to write the book by observing I guess, but even then you could conceive of a different book with instructions on how to write the translation book.