Informatica 19:653-56 (1995)
In this paper I submit that the “Chinese room” argument rests on the assumption that understanding a sentence necessarily implies being conscious of its content. However, this assumption can be challenged by showing that two notions of consciousness come into play, one to be found in AI, the other in Searle’s argument, and that the former is an essential condition for the notion used by Searle. If Searle discards the first, he not only has trouble explaining how we can learn a language but finds the validity of his own argument in jeopardy
|Keywords||Chinese Room Consciousness Semantics vs Syntax|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Functional Role Semantics and Reflective Equilibrium.Simone Gozzano - 2006 - Acta Analytica 21 (38):62-76.
Similar books and articles
Weak Strong AI: An Elaboration of the English Reply to the Chinese Room.Ronald L. Chrisley - unknown
A Chinese Room That Understands.Herbert A. Simon & Stuart A. Eisenstadt - 2003 - In John M. Preston & Michael A. Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press.
Minds, Programs, and Chinese Philosophers: A Chinese Perspective on the Chinese Room.Koji Tanaka - 2004 - Sophia 43 (1):61-72.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads182 ( #24,791 of 2,171,776 )
Recent downloads (6 months)27 ( #11,808 of 2,171,776 )
How can I increase my downloads?