David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 2 (3):217-238 (1992)
When certain formal symbol systems (e.g., computer programs) are implemented as dynamic physical symbol systems (e.g., when they are run on a computer) their activity can be interpreted at higher levels (e.g., binary code can be interpreted as LISP, LISP code can be interpreted as English, and English can be interpreted as a meaninguful conversation). These higher levels of interpretability are called ‘virtual’ systems. If such a virtual system is interpretable as if it had a mind, is such a ‘virtual mind’ real?This is the question addressed in this ‘virtual’ symposium, originally conducted electronically among four cognitive scientists. Donald Perlis, a computer scientist, argues that according to the computationalist thesis, virtual minds are real and hence Searle's Chinese Room Argument fails, because if Searle memorized and executed a program that could pass the Turing Test in Chinese he would have a second, virtual, Chinese-understanding mind of which he was unaware (as in multiple personality). Stevan Harnad, a psychologist, argues that Searle's Argument is valid, virtual minds are just hermeneutic overinterpretations, and symbols must be grounded in the real world of objects, not just the virtual world of interpretations. Computer scientist Patrick Hayes argues that Searle's Argument fails, but because Searle does not really implement the program: a real implementation must not be homuncular but mindless and mechanical, like a computer. Only then can it give rise to a mind at the virtual level. Philosopher Ned Block suggests that there is no reason a mindful implementation would not be a real one
|Keywords||Chinese Room Argument Searle Turing Test computationalism functionalism hermeneutics implementation mind other-minds problem robotics semantics symbol grounding virtual reality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John G. Taylor (2003). Do Virtual Actions Avoid the Chinese Room? In John M. Preston & Michael A. Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press
Robert Scott Stewart & Roderick Nicholls (2002). Virtual Worlds, Travel, and the Picturesque Garden. Philosophy and Geography 5 (1):83 – 99.
Beth Coleman (2011). Hello Avatar. MIT Press.
Ashley John Craft (2007). Sin in Cyber-Eden: Understanding the Metaphysics and Morals of Virtual Worlds. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 9 (3):205-217.
C. Kaernbach (2005). No Virtual Mind in the Chinese Room. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (11):31-42.
David J. Cole (1991). Artificial Intelligence and Personal Identity. Synthese 88 (September):399-417.
John L. Pollock (2008). What Am I? Virtual Machines and the Mind/Body Problem. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (2):237–309.
Stevan Harnad (1993). Artificial Life: Synthetic Versus Virtual. Philosophical Explorations.
Patrick Hayes, Stevan Harnad, Donald R. Perlis & Ned Block (1992). Virtual Symposium on Virtual Mind. Minds and Machines 2 (3):217-238.
Added to index2009-03-31
Total downloads96 ( #39,910 of 1,790,229 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #320,602 of 1,790,229 )
How can I increase my downloads?