John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

The purpose of this article by John Searle is to introduce Johnsell's Chinese chamber theory, which challenges the concept of computational paradigms, especially the ability of intention. The first comment was against Searle and used a super robot to explain his point of view. Then I will agree with Searle and discuss John Eccles' reply to dispute the definition and comparison.

Without a doubt, the most famous argument in the philosophy of artificial intelligence is the Chinese human controversy (CRA) of John Searle (1980), which aims to overthrow "strong" artificial intelligence. Here we provide a brief summary on how AI practitioners look at this discussion and "tremor report". A reader who wants to know more about CRA will find the next good step in documentation of the Chinese conference room and the entry of Bishop & Preston 2002. CRA is based on thought experiments, where Searle is also a star. He is in the room; outside the room there is a native speaker who does not know that Searle is inside. Like Searle-in-the-box, Searle-in-the-box does not know anything about Chinese but speaks fluent English. Chinese send cards to the room through the slots; they are written in Chinese on these cards. This box is provided by Searle's secret job and returns cards as output to Chinese native speakers.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of computational paradigm, especially John Cell's Chinese chamber theory, which challenges the ability to be intentional. The first comment was against Searle and used a super robot to explain his point of view. Then I will agree with Searle and discuss John Eccles' reply to dispute the definition and comparison. My own argument will use minimalistic calculation methods to describe the importance to understanding and the concept of its computational paradigm. Searle's discussion explains what he is thinking ... Read more

Discussion and thought experiments, now commonly referred to as "Chinese Room Arguments", were first published by American philosopher John Searle (1932 -) in 1980. It has become one of the most famous arguments in modern philosophy. Searle imagined that he responded to a computer program by responding to the kanji sliding under the door, when he was alone in the room. Searle does not know anything about Chinese, but according to the procedure of manipulating computer symbols and numbers, it generates an appropriate Chinese character string and thinks that there is a Chinese speaker in the room I will. The narrow conclusion of this discussion is that programming a digital computer is that it may seem to understand the language, but it does not produce a real understanding. Therefore, "Turing test" is not enough. The broader conclusion of this discussion is that computing or information processing system like a computer where human thought is rejected by theory.