John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

The Chinese room theory in John Searl's "thinking, brains, and procedures" is a thought experiment on the assumption of strong artificial intelligence (AI). If you can understand that something has a strong AI nature, then you can explain how human understanding works. I argue that Chinese room theory denies the conclusion of powerful artificial intelligence, but it does not explain what kind of understanding is the problem when distinguishing between human and machine.

In 1980, John Searle published a paper entitled "Thinking, Brain and Procedure" in "Behavioral Science and Brain Science" and introduced a famous thought experiment "Room in China". Through this thought experiment, Searle caused 1000 discussions and discussions on artificial intelligence, consciousness, semantics, functionalism, and computation. Imagine a native English speaker who does not know that Chinese is trapped in a room full of commands (programs) that manipulate symbols boxes (databases) and symbols in Chinese. People outside the room send other Chinese symbols, but people in the room do not know, these symbols are Chinese questions (input)

This is a little decoration of thought experiment named John Searl's "Chinese Room". Searle is exploring the nature of machine intelligence. His experiments show that intelligence can only be achieved by the formal calculation of symbols (why machine manufacture). Therefore, the famous computer Turing test has the disadvantage of making intelligence purely syntactic. Most fifth grade students can do long-term division of labor, are implemented by the curriculum standard, studied by the teacher, and added to the textbook page. Long division is represented as a fixed calculation sequence. This is undisputable; you need to learn a few things, but you do not need to understand, and they are remembered under the name of fluency. Students will play a role of a symbolic promoter to address long-term fragmentation issues of particular concern, using "bus stop method" and other similar methods. But they can not figure out why their method is effective

This article discusses the possibility of opposing the so-called powerful artificial intelligence, paying particular attention to China's indoor debate designed by philosopher John Cell. First, I will explain the argument that Searle wants to object. Let's explain Searle's claim. Later, let's look at some of the opposite of other influential philosophers against Searle. Finally, I compiled my own dissent. It introduced a more accurate definition of powerful artificial intelligence. It invalidated Searle's argument. In the process, we will deal with the general misunderstanding of artificial intelligence.