In Michael A. Bishop & John M. Preston (eds.), [Book Chapter] (in Press). Oxford University Press (2001)
Searle's Chinese Room Argument showed a fatal flaw in computationalism (the idea that mental states are just computational states) and helped usher in the era of situated robotics and symbol grounding (although Searle himself thought neuroscience was the only correct way to understand the mind)
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
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.
Minds, Machines, and Searle 2: What's Right and Wrong About the Chinese Room Argument.Stevan Harnad - 2003 - In John M. Preston & John Mark Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press.
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.
Rights and Wrongs of Searle's Chinese Room Argument.Stevan Harnad - 2001 - In M. Bishop & J. Preston (eds.), Essays on Searle's Chinese Room Argument. Oxford University Press.
Minds, Programs, and Chinese Philosophers: A Chinese Perspective on the Chinese Room.Koji Tanaka - 2004 - Sophia 43 (1):61-72.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads231 ( #15,980 of 2,171,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #36,676 of 2,171,803 )
How can I increase my downloads?