CHINESE ROOM

Does Searle argue that no machine could understand language?

No

What does Searle mean by ‘Strong AI’?

Searle refers to the capacity for a system replicating thought to actually be thinking. He believes that symbol manipulation does not have sufficient causal powers to elicit thought or understanding

Is Searle’s argument concerned with both understanding and consciousness?

Not really

What is the conclusion of Searle’s argument?

Even when considering the best possible program for symbol manipulation, such a process cannot produce understanding or thought

Summarize Searle’s Chinese Room argument for his conclusion

i. The program is the best possible version of symbol manipulation

ii. The person in the room does not understand Chinese, and the physical symbols in the room do not understand Chinese

iii. If no part of the program understands, then the entirety of the program does not understand

∴ Even in the best possible symbol manipulation program, such a program is not sufficient for producing understanding or thought

What was Fodor’s response to Searle’s argument?

If the entirety of the room and rules for symbol manipulation exist inside the man’s head, then there becomes the possibility that the man can have propositional attitudes towards certain things in the world

• Contrary to Searle’s belief that if the man holds the entirety of the room and rules for symbol manipulation in his head, he still does not have the ability to ascribe any semantic value to the symbols being manipulated

• On Fodor’s view, if the man is able to see a chair in the real world, and have a mental representation ‘chair’ be paired with some symbol in Chinese per the system running in his head, then the symbols that were once ‘just scribbles’ now hold a degree of intentionality