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 questions about whether computers understand cannot b... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The questions about whether computers understand cannot be settled without a definition of 'understand' that provides a testable criterion.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Whether Empirical Strong AI is true or false depends on whether computers satisfy the criteria for understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a definition of 'understand' that yields a test, there is no way to judge the hypothesis true or false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's family resemblance theory shows that meaningful concept application does not require necessary and sufficient conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We reliably attribute understanding to other humans without any formal definition or testable criterion for 'understanding'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the absence of a formal definition does not prevent justified judgments about whether a system understands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hilary Putnam's functionalism holds that mental states are defined by causal-functional roles, not by definitional criteria we consciously possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scientific inquiry regularly settles questions about unobservable states (electron spin, gene expression) without prior testable definitions of contested terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The question of machine understanding can therefore be investigated empirically and theoretically without first settling a definitional dispute.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consciousness & Mind2 linked

    Related

    Hilary Putnam's functionalism holds that mental states are defined by causal-fun...Scientific inquiry regularly settles questions about unobservable states (electr...The question of machine understanding can therefore be investigated empirically ...Therefore, the absence of a formal definition does not prevent justified judgmen...
    +4 moreShow less
    We reliably attribute understanding to other humans without any formal definitio...Whether Empirical Strong AI is true or false depends on whether computers satisf...Without a definition of 'understand' that yields a test, there is no way to judg...Wittgenstein's family resemblance theory shows that meaningful concept applicati...

    Similar

    Whether Empirical Strong AI is true or false depends on whether comput...80%Without a definition of 'understand' that yields a test, there is no w...78%Machine understanding is more directly verifiable than human understan...77%It is easier to establish that a machine exhibits understanding than t...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: chinese-room
    View source passageHide passage
    Some defenders of AI are also concerned with how our understanding of understanding bears on the Chinese Room argument. In their paper “A Chinese Room that Understands” AI researchers Simon and Eisenstadt (2002) argue that whereas Searle refutes “logical strong AI”, the thesis that a program that passes the Turing Test will necessarily understand, Searle’s argument does not impugn “Empirical Strong AI” – the thesis that it is possible to program a computer that convincingly satisfies ordinary cr
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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