John Searle's Argument

1340 Words6 Pages
In John Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument he is aiming to indicate that computers cannot think like human beings can. To demonstrate his argument he uses an example of somebody, who is not a native Chinese speaker, being locked in a room with Chinese symbols. The person is then given a book in their native language, in this case English, which tells him or her how to produce symbols effectively in Chinese. It is important to note that the English book telling whoever is locked in the room how to create the Chinese symbols is only telling him or her the formal structure of the Chinese language, not the meaning of each symbol. After the person has created their answer in Chinese, they will receive another question in Chinese. This process goes…show more content…
First of all, his argument is a good argument because he clearly stated his premises and conclusion. Another reason why I think his argument is a good argument is because he explained, in a straightforward fashion, how computer systems work. He argues that computers work in steps that use formal structures, none of which have any meaning connected to them; meaning is usually referred to as semantics in language. After he explains how computers work he goes on to have his audience imagine themselves in a situation that could easily happen to them, making for an easier understanding of what he is attempting to argue; to make his way of reasoning even more clear, after the Chinese room example he gave an example of just the opposite situation, one in which a person is answering questions in their own native language. In this scenario the person would know and understand what it is they are saying because they know the meaning of words in their language, unlike in the Chinese example where no meanings were connected to the symbols. A final reason why he produced a good argument is because he gave answers to the arguments that are brought up to go against his argument. For example, his argument is faced with the argument that the whole computer program really does understand Chinese, but Searle explains that that is not the case because computers only have syntax, where they would need semantics as well as syntax to be able to truly have an understanding of any given
Show More
Related

  • John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

    1583 Words  | 7 Pages

    An American philosopher named John Rogers Searle presented his argument in 1980. It is well-known as Searle’s “Chinese Room Argument.” To further comprehend, the argument presents an English-speaking human who does not know or understand Chinese. The man is put inside a room and is asked to simulate the execution of a computer program using Chinese

    Read More

  • John Searle's Chinese Room

    472 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Searle’s “Chinese Room” is a thought experiment that he explained in his Minds, Brains and Programs. The purpose of this experiment was to prove that computers do not have a consciousness, or any sort of mind or understanding, regardless of if the machine appears to. The scenario that Searle creates begins by introducing a computer that appears to understand the Chinese language. One inputs Chinese characters, and through a computer program, it is able to produce an output of Chinese characters

    Read More

  • Philosophical Naturalism Essay

    1824 Words  | 8 Pages

    1. Which view of the concept of intelligence accords better with philosophical naturalism, as it was described in class: (a) intelligence as an absolute term (like money) or (b) intelligence as a comparative term (like wealth)? Justify your answer. In short, philosophical naturalism argues that there is one and only physical natural world that exists in which all humans are included. Immaterial and supernatural souls and spirits do not exist. Humans are nothing more than a collection of highly organized

    Read More

More about John Searle's Argument

Open Document