3 ms·
Searle didn't show anything of the sort. There have been many responses to it, such as pointing out that it is the whole system, rather than the man, that under
by dbaupp 14y ago
Searle didn't show anything of the sort. There have been many responses to it, such as pointing out that it is the whole system, rather than the man, that understands Chinese, or that it is begging the question in terms of the uniqueness of human intelligence.
E.g. a fun response which reverses it to be AI talking about humans http://lesswrong.com/lw/ghj/searles_cobol_room/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ghj/searles_cobol_room/
- s_baby 14y agoHis thought experiments give a good illustration of the "hard problem" of consciousness. A) It's not rationally possible to explain qualia in terms of quantitative phenomena. We can draw correlations using empiricism but they are ontologies fundamentally inconsistent with one another. B) Intelligence does not imply experience. One of the biggest problems here is conflation of the two. An amoeba has intelligence with basic consciousness of its surroundings. That does not mean it has experiences.