Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral And Brain Sciences 16:194-5 (1993)
|Abstract||Objections to Searle's argument for the Connection Principle and its consequences (Searle 1990a) fall roughly into three categories: (1) those that focus on problems with the _argument_ for the Connection Principle; (2) those that focus on problems in understanding the _conclusion_ of this argument; (3) those that focus on whether the conclusion has the _consequences_ Searle claims for it. I think the Connection Principle is both true and important, but I do not think that Searle's argument establishes it. The problem with the argument is that it either begs the question or proves too much.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
B. Jack Copeland (1993). The Curious Case of the Chinese Gym. Synthese 95 (2):173-86.
Wolfgang Barz (2007). Is There a Conceptual Connection Between Intentionality and Consciousness? Acta Analytica 22 (3):183-188.
Robbert Van Baaren (1999). A Critical Evaluation of Searle's Connection Principle. Teorema 18 (1):73-83.
Andrew Melnyk (1996). Searle's Abstract Argument Against Strong AI. Synthese 108 (3):391-419.
Larry Hauser, Searle's Chinese Room Argument. Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind.
Neil Levy (2011). Searle's Wager. AI and Society 26 (4):363-369.
Simone Gozzano (1997). The Chinese Room Argument: Consciousness and Understanding. In Matjaz Gams, M. Paprzycki & X. Wu (eds.), Mind Versus Computer: Were Dreyfus and Winograd Right? Amsterdam: IOS Press.
William J. Rapaport (1986). Searle's Experiments with Thought. Philosophy of Science 53 (June):271-9.
Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest Lepore (1994). What is the Connection Principle? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):837-45.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #28,168 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,483 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?