A Critique Of The Chinese Room Argument

In this article, Searle sets out the argument, and then replies to the half-dozen main objections that had been raised during his earlier presentations at various university campuses see next section. In the decades following its publication, the Chinese Room argument was the subject of very many discussions. In Januarythe popular periodical Scientific American took the debate to a general scientific audience.

Soon thereafter Searle had a published exchange about the Chinese Room with another leading philosopher, Jerry Fodor. The human produces the appearance of understanding Chinese by following the symbol manipulating instructions, but does not thereby come to understand Chinese. Since a computer just does what the human does—manipulate symbols on the basis of their syntax alone—no computer, merely by following a program, comes to genuinely understand Chinese. Strong AI is the view that suitably programmed computers or the programs themselves can understand natural source and actually have other mental capabilities similar to the humans whose behavior they mimic.

1. Overview

According to Strong AI, these computers really play chess intelligently, make clever moves, or understand language. But weak AI makes no claim that computers actually understand or are intelligent. The Chinese Room argument is not directed at weak AI, nor does it purport to show that no machine can think—Searle says that brains are machines, and brains think. The argument is directed at the view that formal computations on symbols can produce thought. We might summarize the narrow argument as a reductio ad absurdum against Strong AI as follows. A computing system is any system, human or otherwise, that can run a program.

If Strong AI is true, then there is a program for Chinese such that if any computing system runs that program, that system thereby comes to understand Chinese. I could run a program for Chinese without thereby coming to understand Chinese. Therefore Strong AI is false.

The second premise is supported by the Chinese Room thought experiment. The conclusion of this narrow argument is that running a program cannot endow the system with language understanding. That and related issues are discussed in the section The Larger Philosophical Issues.

A Critique Of The Chinese Room Argument - opinion you

However his argument is flawed, and actually aids in the argument for the symbol system hypothesis. I will show that even the symbol-manipulator in his extreme example is capable of thought, although it still would be inferior to the human brain. He performs various binary operations, manipulating the symbols given to him, and delivers the result of his operations through the output slot. Of course the operator cannot understand Chinese, and neither can the books of rules. However, it is my argument that a greater intelligence is formed that the operator need not be aware of, and that it is a mistake for Searle to assume that the system is limited to the operator. When the operator starts manipulating symbols as per the instructions in his manuals, he creates a larger system. A Critique Of The Chinese Room Argument.