Summary Of John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

2029 Words9 Pages
Supporters of computationalism and strong artificial intelligence claim that computers are capable of intelligence and other cognitive states if they are programed correctly. Therefore, computers can explain how human cognition performs. I contend that John Searle is correct in his claim that computers are incapable of understanding language and are, therefore, unable to explain human cognition. I begin the essay with Searle’s Chinese room argument, and explain how he uses it to prove that computers cannot understand language as they operate on syntax alone, where syntax is insufficient in producing understanding. Thereafter, I provide a description of the robot reply to the Chinese room argument, which states that a robot with a computer insert and sensory apparatus would be able to achieve understanding, a view which Searle argues is still insufficient. Moreover, I utilise my definitions of understanding and meaning, to explain that computers are incapable of both semantics and syntax. Where understanding regards syntax and meaning regards significance of which both are consciousness-dependent concepts. Lastly, I differentiate sensation from perception, where perception is the ability to interpret sensory information, in order to…show more content…
Thus, the CR proves that computers cannot understand language. Furthermore, my argument supports Searle’s (1980) claim that computers cannot explain human cognition, as they cannot attain knowledge for they are incapable of intelligence. It is impossible for a computer to explain human cognition when it is incapable of performing those very same abilities. Therefore, strong artificial intelligence is
Open Document