Computationalism and the problem of other minds

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In this paper I discuss Searle's claim that the computational properties of a system could never cause a system to be conscious. In the first section of the paper I argue that Searle is correct that, even if a system both behaves in a way that is characteristic of conscious agents (like ourselves) and has a computational structure similar to those agents, one cannot be certain that that system is conscious. On the other hand, I suggest that Searle's intuition that it is “empirically absurd” that such a system could be conscious is unfounded. In the second section I show that Searle's attempt to show that a system's computational states could not possibly cause it to be conscious is based upon an erroneous distinction between computational and physical properties. On the basis of these two arguments, I conclude that, supposing that the behavior of conscious agents can be explained in terms of their computational properties, we have good reason to suppose that a system having computational properties similar to such agents is also conscious. © 1995, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Glennan, S. S. (1995). Computationalism and the problem of other minds. Philosophical Psychology, 8(4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089508573166

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free