William Lycan's Response to John Searle

William Lycan 's reaction as a functionalist seems to be one of the most interesting answers to Searle' s thesis. However, it seems to be one of the most open. Lycan's reaction as a functionalist seems to be very similar to the reaction of the system. In response to Searle's paper, both systems responded, Lycan's functional staff replied that the entire system understood the story although the individual trapped in the room did not understand the story. Lycan basically wrote the logical answer of Searle's article in an empty discussion.

Sometimes, Lycan and Searle seem to be discussing two different things. Lycan seems to seek "if" but Searle seems to be looking for a consistent discussion that can be adapted accordingly. But if they do not agree, they also agree that they are materialists and therefore can be in the same competitive environment. The real problem seems to be a computer assumption, it may actually be a "person." The real argument between Lycan and Searles results in the existence of this hypothesis being able to think of itself in a true "internal" sense. If this is possible, Lycan is thinking that all assumptions about exist must be equal to real people 's assumptions, and therefore there should be a moral right to have real people. Since Searle denies these assumptions, Lycan calls Searle a human follower.

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 coincide with Searle and discuss John Eccles' response to a number of objections to definitions and comparisons. 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

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