Quantum linguistics and Searle's Chinese room argument

In V. C. Muller (ed.), Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 17-29 (2011)

Authors
John Mark Bishop
Goldsmiths College, University of London
Abstract
Viewed in the light of the remarkable performance of ‘Watson’ - IBMs proprietary artificial intelligence computer system capable of answering questions posed in natural language - on the US general knowledge quiz show ‘Jeopardy’, we review two experiments on formal systems - one in the domain of quantum physics, the other involving a pictographic languaging game - whereby behaviour seemingly characteristic of domain understanding is generated by the mere mechanical application of simple rules. By re-examining both experiments in the context of Searle’s Chinese Room Argument, we suggest their results merely endorse Searle’s core intuition: that ‘syntactical manipulation of symbols is not sufficient for semantics’. Although, pace Watson, some artificial intelligence practitioners have suggested that more complex, higher-level operations on formal symbols are required to instantiate understanding in computational systems, we show that even high-level calls to Google translate would not enable a computer qua ‘formal symbol processor’ to understand the language it processes. We thus conclude that even the most recent developments in ‘quantum linguistics’ will not enable computational systems to genuinely understand natural language.
Keywords Chinese room argument  Quantum linguistics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2013
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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

An Essay on Man.Ernst Cassirer - 1945 - Philosophical Review 54 (5):509-510.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Note on the Chinese Room.Hanoch Ben-Yami - 1993 - Synthese 95 (2):169-72.
Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room.Jason Ford - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (1):57-72.
The Chinese Room Argument: Consciousness and Understanding.Simone Gozzano - 1997 - In Matjaz Gams, M. Paprzycki & X. Wu (eds.), Mind Versus Computer: Were Dreyfus and Winograd Right? Amsterdam: IOS Press. pp. 43--231.
The Chinese Room Comes of Age A Review of Preston & Bishop.Anthony Freeman - 2004 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 11 (5-6):5-6.
Artificial Intelligence and Personal Identity.David J. Cole - 1991 - Synthese 88 (September):399-417.
What's Wrong and Right About Searle's Chinese Room Argument?Stevan Harnad - 2001 - In Michael A. Bishop & John M. Preston (eds.), [Book Chapter] (in Press). Oxford University Press.
Nixin' Goes to China.Larry Hauser - 2003 - In John M. Preston & John Mark Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press. pp. 123--143.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-10-11

Total views
313 ( #18,895 of 2,271,521 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
90 ( #6,401 of 2,271,521 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature