John Searle's The Chinese Room Argument

1040 Words5 Pages
The Chinese Room Argument was a thought experiment presented by an American philosopher by the name of John Searle. The Chinese room argument is a concept that refutes the idea of a strong artificial intelligence also known as Strong Al. Strong Ai is “the view that an appropriately programmed digital computer capable of passing the Turing test would thereby have mental states and a mind in the same sense in which human beings have mental states and a mind” (Searle, 2005). However the opposing view of weak Al is distinguished by the view that the computer is a useful tool in studying the mind, just as it is a useful tool in other disciplines ranging from molecular biology to weather prediction. In the following essay I will explain in detail…show more content…
If the human understood Chinese, both the computer and the human could converse with the Chinese student, but the computer still would not understand Chinese just how to respond appropriately based on the right inputs. According to Searle the Chinese Room Argument has three steps and a conclusion listed below. 1. Computer programs are defined entirely in terms of symbolic or syntactic operations. 2. Minds – Actula human minds such as yours and mine – have mental contents or semantics. 3. By themselves, the implemented synthetic steps of the program are neither constitutive of mental content nor sufficient to guarantee the presence of mental content. 4. Conclusion – The implemented computer program is insufficient by itself to constitute or to guarantee the presence of the appropriate mental…show more content…
Therefore, the lack of understanding of the person in the room is only one piece of the puzzle. The systems itself is made up of more puzzle pieces to include, the room the instructions the database, etc. “So the understanding should be found in the entire system, not in the person, because the person is only the central processing unit. (Searle, 2005).” The refutation of this reply meaning needs to be attached to symbols in order for them to understand. However Searle believes that is no way to attach meaning to symbols, therefore, the entire system is in no better position to understand the semantics behind than symbols than a single individual
Open Document