> it was addressed by Searle by proposing that a person memorize the contents of the book.
It wasn’t addressed, he just added a layer of nonsense on top of a nonworking though experiment. A human remembering and executing rules is no different from reading those rules in a book. It doesn’t mean a human understands them, just because he remembers them. The human intuitive understanding works at a completely different level than the manual execution of mechanical rules.
> it contains various components that respond to the word “red”, but it does not contain any components that exclusively respond to any use of the word “red”.
> The human intuitive understanding works at a completely different level than the manual execution of mechanical rules.
This is exactly Searle’s point. Whatever the room is doing, it is not the same as what humans do.
If you accept that, then the rest is semantics. You can call what the room does “intelligent” or “understanding” if you want, but it is fundamentally different from “human intelligence” or “human understanding”.
> This is exactly Searle’s point. Whatever the room is doing, it is not the same as what humans do.
He fails to show that. All he has shown that the human+room-system is something different than just the human by itself. Well, doh, nobody ever assumed otherwise. Running a NES emulator on my modern x86-64 CPU is something different from running an original NES too. That doesn’t mean that the emulator is more or less capable than the real NES or that the underlying rules driving the emulator are different from the real thing. You have to actually test the systems and find ways in which they differ. Searle’s experiments utterly fails here.
> All he has shown that the human+room-system is something different than just the human by itself.
It’s more than that. He says that all Turing machines are fundamentally the same as the Chinese room, and therefore no Turing machine will ever be capable of “human understanding”.
Alternately, if anyone ever builds a machine that can achieve “human understanding”, it will not be a Turing machine.
> it was addressed by Searle by proposing that a person memorize the contents of the book.
It wasn’t addressed, he just added a layer of nonsense on top of a nonworking though experiment. A human remembering and executing rules is no different from reading those rules in a book. It doesn’t mean a human understands them, just because he remembers them. The human intuitive understanding works at a completely different level than the manual execution of mechanical rules.
> it contains various components that respond to the word “red”, but it does not contain any components that exclusively respond to any use of the word “red”.
Not getting it.
> The human intuitive understanding works at a completely different level than the manual execution of mechanical rules.
This is exactly Searle’s point. Whatever the room is doing, it is not the same as what humans do.
If you accept that, then the rest is semantics. You can call what the room does “intelligent” or “understanding” if you want, but it is fundamentally different from “human intelligence” or “human understanding”.
> This is exactly Searle’s point. Whatever the room is doing, it is not the same as what humans do.
He fails to show that. All he has shown that the human+room-system is something different than just the human by itself. Well, doh, nobody ever assumed otherwise. Running a NES emulator on my modern x86-64 CPU is something different from running an original NES too. That doesn’t mean that the emulator is more or less capable than the real NES or that the underlying rules driving the emulator are different from the real thing. You have to actually test the systems and find ways in which they differ. Searle’s experiments utterly fails here.
> All he has shown that the human+room-system is something different than just the human by itself.
It’s more than that. He says that all Turing machines are fundamentally the same as the Chinese room, and therefore no Turing machine will ever be capable of “human understanding”.
Alternately, if anyone ever builds a machine that can achieve “human understanding”, it will not be a Turing machine.