Perhaps that we dogmatically believe that people understand but computers don't? — Michael
And then there's the question of intentionality. How do symbols refer? How is it that 1 stands for any single individual item? — Marchesk
No, not dogma. It's really absurd to maintain otherwise, unless you're invoking some altered version of the other minds problem in which I'm the only one not doing symbol manipulation. — Marchesk
If it's not dogma then there's evidence. What evidence shows that the computer who says "I'm sorry" doesn't understand and that the human who says "I'm sorry" does? — Michael
Humans form emotional bonds and machines don't. Do you need some scientific literature to back this up? Humans also grieve and machines don't. — Marchesk
Then what does reference mean? — Michael
What evidence shows that humans can form emotional bonds and grieve but that computers can't? You can't use science because science can only ever use observable behaviour as evidence, and the premise of the thought experiment is that the computer has the same observable behaviour as a human. — Michael
The mathematical symbol "1" means any item or unit ever, in the context of counting or sets. You can use it to denote any one thing. — Marchesk
Sure. And you asked how it's come to mean this thing. I pointed out that we're provided with some input (of which there may be many that resemble one another in some empirical way), e.g. "•" or "••", and are told what to output, e.g. "1" or "2". — Michael
Okay, let's set aside empirical matters and just accept that humans do experience emotion. What about turing machines? Can a turing machine, in just it's abstract form, experience grief? Does that make any sense? — Marchesk
If we're just going to accept that the humans experience emotions then why not just accept that the Turing machine does? — Michael
The claim Searle is making is that no amount of symbol manipulation gets you to understanding, because understanding isn't in the symbols. — Marchesk
You're shifting the terms of understanding. If understanding is granted to the system for the accurate manipulation of the symbols, then human understanding is likewise granted for accurate manipulation of the symbols. It's not enough to have the symbols, one has to have the rules to manipulate the symbols. — Soylent
Searle, and perhaps you, seems to want to isolate the understanding of the Chinese Room participant from the entire system, which includes the set(s) of rules. Martha doesn't need to know the meaning of the output, because the meaning is supplied by the entire system and not a single part of it. — Soylent
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.