hayes.pa@XEROX.COM (03/15/88)
Adrian G C Redgers writes: >a) I thought Searle's point was that humans might not "understand" >Chinese (or English) and are simply manipulating symbols which >model the world. The 'Chinese room' is then a brain. ... Or was >Searle pointing out that the room is unsatisfactory for those very >reasons? Why not try reading Searle? He couldnt be clearer or more entertaining ( or wronger, but thats another story ). He isnt claiming that brains arent machines, or that humans dont understand Chinese. His point is that a programmed computer cant understand anything, even if it behaves impeccably, passing the Turing test all over the place. Reason: well, the program cant because its just a pile of symbols, and the unprogrammed hardware ( =the man in the room ) certainly doesnt know anything, being just dumb electronics, and that/s all there is in a programmed computer, QED. A brain, now, is different, because of course brains understand things: and the conclusion obviously is that whatever sort of machine the brain is, it isnt a programmed computer. So `strong AI' is wrong, Turing test and all. Weak AI, on the other hand, just claims that it is simulating intelligence on electronics, which is fine ( says Searle ) - probably a scientific mistake, he guesses, but not a philosophical mistake, and immune from the Chinese room argument. Pat Hayes