Results for 'Chinese room'

999 found
Order:
See also
  1. The Chinese Room Argument.David Cole - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  2. The Chinese Room From a Logical Point of View.B. Jack Copeland - 2003 - In John M. Preston & John Mark Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3. The Chinese Room Argument--Dead but Not yet Buried.Robert I. Damper - 2004 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 11 (5-6):159-169.
    This article is an accompaniment to Anthony Freeman’s review of Views into the Chinese Room, reflecting on some pertinent outstanding questions about the Chinese room argument. Although there is general agreement in the artificial intelligence community that the CRA is somehow wrong, debate continues on exactly why and how it is wrong. Is there a killer counter-argument and, if so, what is it? One remarkable fact is that the CRA is prototypically a thought experiment, yet it (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4. The Chinese Room Argument Reconsidered: Essentialism, Indeterminacy, and Strong AI. [REVIEW]Jerome C. Wakefield - 2003 - Minds and Machines 13 (2):285-319.
    I argue that John Searle's (1980) influential Chinese room argument (CRA) against computationalism and strong AI survives existing objections, including Block's (1998) internalized systems reply, Fodor's (1991b) deviant causal chain reply, and Hauser's (1997) unconscious content reply. However, a new ``essentialist'' reply I construct shows that the CRA as presented by Searle is an unsound argument that relies on a question-begging appeal to intuition. My diagnosis of the CRA relies on an interpretation of computationalism as a scientific theory (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5. A Chinese Room That Understands.Herbert A. Simon & Stuart A. Eisenstadt - 2003 - In John M. Preston & John Mark Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  76
    The Chinese Room Revisited.J. R. Searle - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):345-348.
  7. Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence.John Mark Bishop & John Preston (eds.) - 2002 - London: Oxford University Press.
  8.  45
    Zombie Mouse in a Chinese Room.Slawomir J. Nasuto, John Mark Bishop, Etienne B. Roesch & Matthew C. Spencer - 2015 - Philosophy and Technology 28 (2):209-223.
    John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument purports to demonstrate that syntax is not sufficient for semantics, and, hence, because computation cannot yield understanding, the computational theory of mind, which equates the mind to an information processing system based on formal computations, fails. In this paper, we use the CRA, and the debate that emerged from it, to develop a philosophical critique of recent advances in robotics and neuroscience. We describe results from a body of work that contributes to blurring (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9.  19
    The Chinese Room Comes of Age A Review of Preston & Bishop.Anthony Freeman - 2004 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 11 (5-6):5-6.
    It was in 1980 that John Searle first opened the door of his Chinese Room, purporting to show that the conscious mind cannot, in principle, work like a digital computer. Searle, who speaks no Chinese, stipulated that locked in this fictitious space he had a supply of different Chinese symbols, together with instructions for using them . When Chinese characters were passed in to him, he would consult the instructions and pass out more symbols. Neither (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  10. Escaping From the Chinese Room.Margaret A. Boden - 1988 - In John Heil (ed.), Computer Models of Mind. Cambridge University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations  
  11. The Chinese Room Argument.Larry Hauser - 2001
    _The Chinese room argument_ - John Searle's (1980a) thought experiment and associated (1984) derivation - is one of the best known and widely credited counters to claims of artificial intelligence (AI), i.e., to claims that computers _do_ or at least _can_ (someday might) think. According to Searle's original presentation, the argument is based on two truths: _brains cause minds_ , and _syntax doesn't_ _suffice for semantics_ . Its target, Searle dubs "strong AI": "according to strong AI," according to (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  12. Subsymbolic Computation and the Chinese Room.David J. Chalmers - 1992 - In J. Dinsmore (ed.), The Symbolic and Connectionist Paradigms: Closing the Gap. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 25--48.
    More than a decade ago, philosopher John Searle started a long-running controversy with his paper “Minds, Brains, and Programs” (Searle, 1980a), an attack on the ambitious claims of artificial intelligence (AI). With his now famous _Chinese Room_ argument, Searle claimed to show that despite the best efforts of AI researchers, a computer could never recreate such vital properties of human mentality as intentionality, subjectivity, and understanding. The AI research program is based on the underlying assumption that all important aspects of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  13. The Chinese Room Argument.Josef Moural - 2003 - In Barry Smith (ed.), John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 214-260.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  14.  95
    A Logical Hole the Chinese Room Avoids.Donald Nute - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (3):431-433.
    Searle’s Chinese room argument (CRA) was recently charged as being unsound because it makes a logical error. It is shown here that this charge is based on a misinterpretation of the modal scope of a major premise of the CRA and that the CRA does not commit the logical error with which it is charged.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15. How Helen Keller Used Syntactic Semantics to Escape From a Chinese Room.William J. Rapaport - 2006 - Minds and Machines 16 (4):381-436.
    A computer can come to understand natural language the same way Helen Keller did: by using “syntactic semantics”—a theory of how syntax can suffice for semantics, i.e., how semantics for natural language can be provided by means of computational symbol manipulation. This essay considers real-life approximations of Chinese Rooms, focusing on Helen Keller’s experiences growing up deaf and blind, locked in a sort of Chinese Room yet learning how to communicate with the outside world. Using the SNePS (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  16. Yes, She Was!: Reply to Ford’s “Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room”.William J. Rapaport - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (1):3-17.
    Ford’s Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room claims that my argument in How Helen Keller Used Syntactic Semantics to Escape from a Chinese Room fails because Searle and I use the terms ‘syntax’ and ‘semantics’ differently, hence are at cross purposes. Ford has misunderstood me; this reply clarifies my theory.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  17. A Logical Hole in the Chinese Room.Michael John Shaffer - 2009 - Minds and Machines 19 (2):229-235.
    Searle’s Chinese Room Argument (CRA) has been the object of great interest in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence and cognitive science since its initial presentation in ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’ in 1980. It is by no means an overstatement to assert that it has been a main focus of attention for philosophers and computer scientists of many stripes. It is then especially interesting to note that relatively little has been said about the detailed logic of the argument, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  18. Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room.Jason Ford - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (1):57-72.
    William Rapaport, in “How Helen Keller used syntactic semantics to escape from a Chinese Room,” (Rapaport 2006), argues that Helen Keller was in a sort of Chinese Room, and that her subsequent development of natural language fluency illustrates the flaws in Searle’s famous Chinese Room Argument and provides a method for developing computers that have genuine semantics (and intentionality). I contend that his argument fails. In setting the problem, Rapaport uses his own preferred definitions (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  19. Consciousness, Computation, and the Chinese Room.Roger Penrose - 2003 - In John M. Preston & Michael A. Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  20. 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.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. John Searle's Chinese Room Argument.John McCarthy - unknown
    John Searle begins his ``Consciousness, Explanatory Inversion and Cognitive Science'' with " ``Ten years ago in this journal I published an article criticising what I call Strong AI, the view that for a system to have mental states it is sufficient for the system to implement the right sort of program with right inputs and outputs. Strong AI is rather easy to refute and the basic argument can be summarized in one sentence: {it a system, me for example, could implement (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22. A Note on the Chinese Room.Hanoch Ben-Yami - 1993 - Synthese 95 (2):169-72.
    Searle's Chinese Room was supposed to prove that computers can't understand: the man in the room, following, like a computer, syntactical rules alone, though indistinguishable from a genuine Chinese speaker, doesn't understand a word. But such a room is impossible: the man won't be able to respond correctly to questions like What is the time?, even though such an ability is indispensable for a genuine Chinese speaker. Several ways to provide the room with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23.  35
    Machine Understanding and the Chinese Room.Natika Newton - 1989 - Philosophical Psychology 2 (2):207-15.
    John Searle has argued that one can imagine embodying a machine running any computer program without understanding the symbols, and hence that purely computational processes do not yield understanding. The disagreement this argument has generated stems, I hold, from ambiguity in talk of 'understanding'. The concept is analysed as a relation between subjects and symbols having two components: a formal and an intentional. The central question, then becomes whether a machine could possess the intentional component with or without the formal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  24. Is the Chinese Room the Real Thing?David Anderson - 1987 - Philosophy 62 (July):389-93.
  25.  55
    Adventures in the Chinese Room.Dale Jacquette - 1989 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49 (June):605-23.
  26. Chinese Room Argument.Larry Hauser - 2001 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    The Chinese room argument is a thought experiment of John Searle (1980a) and associated (1984) derivation. It is one of the best known and widely credited counters to claims of artificial intelligence (AI)—that is, to claims that computers do or at least can (someday might) think. According to Searle’s original presentation, the argument is based on two key claims: brains cause minds and syntax doesn’t suffice for semantics. Its target is what Searle dubs “strong AI.” According to strong (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27.  58
    Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. [REVIEW]Jonathan Waskan - 2005 - Philosophical Review 114 (2):277-282.
  28. Searle's Chinese Box: Debunking the Chinese Room Argument. [REVIEW]Larry Hauser - 1997 - Minds and Machines 7 (2):199-226.
    John Searle's Chinese room argument is perhaps the most influential andwidely cited argument against artificial intelligence. Understood astargeting AI proper – claims that computers can think or do think– Searle's argument, despite its rhetorical flash, is logically andscientifically a dud. Advertised as effective against AI proper, theargument, in its main outlines, is an ignoratio elenchi. It musterspersuasive force fallaciously by indirection fostered by equivocaldeployment of the phrase "strong AI" and reinforced by equivocation on thephrase "causal powers" equal to (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  29. What’s Really Going On in Searle’s “Chinese Room‘.Georges Rey - 1986 - Philosophical Studies 50 (September):169-85.
  30. Consciousness and Understanding in the Chinese Room.Simone Gozzano - 1995 - Informatica 19:653-56.
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31.  27
    Machine Understanding and the Chinese Room.Natika Newton - 1988 - Philosophical Psychology 1 (2):207 – 215.
    John Searle has argued that one can imagine embodying a machine running any computer program without understanding the symbols, and hence that purely computational processes do not yield understanding. The disagreement this argument has generated stems, I hold, from ambiguity in talk of 'understanding'. The concept is analysed as a relation between subjects and symbols having two components: a formal and an intentional. The central question, then becomes whether a machine could possess the intentional component with or without the formal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  32.  8
    The Chinese Room Revisited : Artificial Intelligence and the Nature of Mind.Rodrigo Gonzalez - 2007 - Dissertation, KU Leuven
    Charles Babbage began the quest to build an intelligent machine in the nineteenth century. Despite finishing neither the Difference nor the Analytical engine, he was aware that the use of mental language for describing the functioning of such machines was figurative. In order to reverse this cautious stance, Alan Turing postulated two decisive ideas that contributed to give birth to Artificial Intelligence: the Turing machine and the Turing test. Nevertheless, a philosophical problem arises from regarding intelligence simulation and make-believe as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  94
    The Chinese Room is a Trick.Peter Kugel - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):153-154.
    To convince us that computers cannot have mental states, Searle (1980) imagines a “Chinese room” that simulates a computer that “speaks” Chinese and asks us to find the understanding in the room. It's a trick. There is no understanding in the room, not because computers can't have it, but because the room's computer-simulation is defective. Fix it and understanding appears. Abracadabra!
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34.  39
    Searle and the Chinese Room Argument.Leslie Burkholder - 2011 - In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35.  94
    Searle's Chinese Room Argument.Stevan Harnad - unknown
    Computationalism. According to computationalism, to explain how the mind works, cognitive science needs to find out what the right computations are -- the same ones that the brain performs in order to generate the mind and its capacities. Once we know that, then every system that performs those computations will have those mental states: Every computer that runs the mind's program will have a mind, because computation is hardware independent : Any hardware that is running the right program has the (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  36.  48
    Closing the Chinese Room.Timothy Weiss - 1990 - Ratio 3 (2):165-81.
  37.  17
    Closing the Chinese Room.Thomas Weiss - 1990 - Ratio 3 (2):165-181.
  38. No Virtual Mind in the Chinese Room.C. Kaernbach - 2005 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 12 (11):31-42.
    The Chinese room thought experiment of John Searle militates against strong artificial intelligence, illustrating his claim that syntactical knowledge by itself is neither constitutive nor sufficient for semantic understanding as found in human minds. This thought experiment was put to a behavioural test, concerning the syntax of a finite algebraic field. Input, rules and output were presented with letters instead of numbers. The set of rules was first presented as a table but finally internalized by the participants. Quite (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  39.  33
    A View Inside the Chinese Room.J. M. Bishop - 2004 - Philosopher: revue pour tous 28 (4):47-51.
  40. A Chinese Room That Understands.A. Herbert - 2002 - In John M. Preston & John Mark Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press. pp. 95.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Computers, Persons, and the Chinese Room. Part 1: The Human Computer.Ricardo Restrepo - 2012 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 33 (1):27-48.
    Detractors of Searle’s Chinese Room Argument have arrived at a virtual consensus that the mental properties of the Man performing the computations stipulated by the argument are irrelevant to whether computational cognitive science is true. This paper challenges this virtual consensus to argue for the first of the two main theses of the persons reply, namely, that the mental properties of the Man are what matter. It does this by challenging many of the arguments and conceptions put forth (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. The Chinese Room.Josef Moural - 2003 - In Barry Smith (ed.), John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 214-260.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. The Chinese Room Argument.Ajit Narayanan - 1991 - In Logical Foundations. New York: St Martin's Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. The Chinese-Room as a Test of the Turing Test, Can Machine Think.R. Rheinwald - 1992 - Philosophische Rundschau 39 (1-2):133-156.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. Computers, Persons, and the Chinese Room. Part 2: Testing Computational Cognitive Science.Ricardo Restrepo - 2012 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 33 (3):123-140.
    This paper is a follow-up of the first part of the persons reply to the Chinese Room Argument. The first part claims that the mental properties of the person appearing in that argument are what matter to whether computational cognitive science is true. This paper tries to discern what those mental properties are by applying a series of hypothetical psychological and strengthened Turing tests to the person, and argues that the results support the thesis that the Man performing (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. Twenty-One Years in the Chinese Room.John R. Searle - 2002 - In John M. Preston & John Mark Bishop (eds.), Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  47. The Logic of Searle’s Chinese Room Argument.Robert I. Damper - 2006 - Minds and Machines 16 (2):163-183.
    John Searle’s Chinese room argument is a celebrated thought experiment designed to refute the hypothesis, popular among artificial intelligence scientists and philosophers of mind, that “the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind”. Since its publication in 1980, the CRA has evoked an enormous amount of debate about its implications for machine intelligence, the functionalist philosophy of mind, theories of consciousness, etc. Although the general consensus among commentators is that the CRA is flawed, and not withstanding the popularity (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48. Yin and Yang in the Chinese Room.Jerry A. Fodor - 1991 - In D. Rosenthal (ed.), The Nature of Mind. Oxford University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  49.  16
    Deconstructing the Chinese Room.Gordon G. Globus - 1991 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 12 (3):377-91.
    The "Chinese Room" controversy between Searle and Churchland and Churchland over whether computers can think is subjected to Derridean "deconstruction." There is a hidden complicity underlying the debate which upholds traditional subject/object metaphysics, while deferring to future empirical science an account of the problematic semantic relation between brain syntax and the perceptible world. I show that an empirical solution along the lines hoped for is not scientifically conceivable at present. An alternative account is explored, based on the productivity (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. Minds, Programs, and Chinese Philosophers: A Chinese Perspective on the Chinese Room.Koji Tanaka - 2004 - Sophia 43 (1):61-72.
    The paper is concerned with John Searle’s famous Chinese room argument. Despite being objected to by some, Searle’s Chinese room argument appears very appealing. This is because Searle’s argument is based on an intuition about the mind that ‘we’ all seem to share. Ironically, however, Chinese philosophers don’t seem to share this same intuition. The paper begins by first analysing Searle’s Chinee room argument. It then introduces what can be seen as the (implicit) (...) view of the mind. Lastly, it demonstrates a conceptual difference between Chinese and Western philosophy with respect to the notion of mind. Thus, it is shown that one must carefully attend to the presuppositions underlying Chinese philosophising in interpreting Chinese philosophers. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 999