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
    The Chinese Room argument is valid and works against the ... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Chinese Room argument demonstrates that a program simulating understanding does not itself understand
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Systems Reply fails to account for the distinction between simulation and genuine understanding
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Searle's internalization move commits a mereological fallacy by attributing to the part what belongs only to the whole system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognitive properties like understanding are legitimately emergent at the system level and need not be present in any single component.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Systems Reply correctly identifies that the room-plus-rules constitutes a distinct cognitive entity irreducible to Searle-inside-the-room.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Searle's intuition that the man 'doesn't understand Chinese' smuggles in a question-begging assumption about where understanding must be located.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dennett's heterophenomenological framework shows that understanding is best attributed functionally to systems exhibiting the right input-output dispositions, not to inner qualia.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Consciousness & Mind

    Related

    Cognitive properties like understanding are legitimately emergent at the system ...Dennett's heterophenomenological framework shows that understanding is best attr...Searle's internalization move commits a mereological fallacy by attributing to t...Searle's intuition that the man 'doesn't understand Chinese' smuggles in a quest...
    +3 moreShow less
    The Chinese Room argument demonstrates that a program simulating understanding d...The Systems Reply correctly identifies that the room-plus-rules constitutes a di...The Systems Reply fails to account for the distinction between simulation and ge...

    Similar

    The Poverty of the Stimulus argument for Nativism is blocked if anti-C...83%The Robot Reply to the Chinese Room argument is no stronger than the S...83%The Virtual Mind Reply to the Chinese Room argument is implausible81%Fodor's revised argument against the Chinese Room is unsubstantiated81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit