Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Searle's argument that anything mapping onto a formal sys... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Searle's argument that anything mapping onto a formal system is a formal system fails as applied to minds

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An implementing system must satisfy the right counterfactuals to count as instantiating a program
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Searle's argument ignores the counterfactual requirements on implementing systems
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Minds are not merely formal systems in Searle's trivial sense because genuine implementation requires causal powers, not just interpretive mapping
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Consciousness & Mind

    Connections

    1 topic

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Causation3 linked

    Related

    An implementing system must satisfy the right counterfactuals to count as instan...Minds are not merely formal systems in Searle's trivial sense because genuine im...Searle's argument ignores the counterfactual requirements on implementing system...

    Similar

    Minds are not merely formal systems in Searle's trivial sense because ...85%Gödel's incompleteness proof reveals fundamental limitations on formal...80%Such a system is capable of reasoning about its own functions and proo...75%The formal reality of an idea, understood as an operation of the mind,...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: chinese-room
    View source passageHide passage
    Critics note that walls are not computers; unlike a wall, a computer goes through state-transitions that are counterfactually described by a program (Chalmers 1996, Block 2002, Haugeland 2002). In his 2002 paper, Block addresses the question of whether a wall is a computer (in reply to Searle’s charge that anything that maps onto a formal system is a formal system, whereas minds are quite different). Block denies that whether or not something is a computer depends entirely on our interpretation.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit