Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!shankar
From: shankar@netcom.com (Shankar Ramakrishnan)
Subject: Re: Chinese Room debunked
Message-ID: <shankarDAn7Ep.F5x@netcom.com>
Reply-To: shankar@vlibs.com
Organization: VLSI Libraries Incorporated
References: <3seo4h$5j0@nntp5.u.washington.edu> <3sepru$mas@news.tamu.edu> <3serer$ejr@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:25:36 GMT
Lines: 36
Sender: vlsi_lib@netcom14.netcom.com

In article <3serer$ejr@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In <3sepru$mas@news.tamu.edu> trm4627@tamucc.edu (thomas r marking) writes:
>
>>Ah!, but the original point of Searle's Chinese Room argument was to debunk the
>>notion of intelligence in machines.
>
>Right.
>
>>                      Intelligence can be determined by the behavior of the
>>system (whether it be computers or humans).  In other words, intelligence
>>equals complex behavior.
>
>That is precisely what Searle is trying to refute.  Searle will not
>accept that there is intelligence unless there is 'understanding' or
>'semantics' or 'intentionality'. 

Has this got anything to do with the concept of 'free will'?

 The idea that a machine can produce
>the correct behavior is referred to be Searle as 'weak ai'.  He
>accepts that.  He is arguing against 'strong ai' for which he
>requires more than just getting the behavior right.
>
>>                          As to the question of whether or not machines have
>>"true" experiences in the same way that we do, I don't think that question
>>can ever be truly answered either way.  I also don't think that it bears on
>>the question of machine intelligence.
>
>The question of experience is the question Searle is arguing.
>

You mean, qualia and such? If so, you are right - this question can never
be truly answered.

Shankar Ramakrishnan
shankar@vlibs.com
