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
    The Chinese Room argument demonstrates that a program sim... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Chinese Room argument is valid and works against the Systems Reply

    The Chinese Room argument demonstrates that a program simulating understanding does not itself understand

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Consciousness & Mind

    Related

    The Chinese Room argument is valid and works against the Systems ReplyThe Systems Reply fails to account for the distinction between simulation and ge...

    Similar

    The Systems Reply fails to account for the distinction between simulat...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consciousness & Mind
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    84%
    The Chinese Room argument exploits human ignorance of cognitive and se...81%
    The Chinese Room argument demonstrates that symbol manipulation withou...81%
    The Chinese Room Argument cannot refute the claim that a programmed di...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: chinese-room
    View source passageHide passage
    Stevan Harnad has defended Searle’s argument against Systems Reply critics in two papers. In his 1989 paper, Harnad writes “Searle formulates the problem as follows: Is the mind a computer program? Or, more specifically, if a computer program simulates or imitates activities of ours that seem to require understanding (such as communicating in language), can the program itself be said to understand in so doing?” (Note the specific claim: the issue is taken to be whether the program itself underst

    Details

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

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective