Chinese Room Argument Analysis

Register to read the introduction… When an animal is said to be deliberating or conceptualizing among other things it is said to be thinking and this thinking is said to be taking place within its mind. When a computer is processing information on route to its end goal it is said to be computing. Computing however is a term sometimes used in the realm of animals as well. In math class the teacher may instruct her students to “compute 5+5=x” and the students, without the aid of technology, may mentally compute the equation. Thinking however is a term that, at the moment, is used strictly when referring to animals, mainly humans. Computing within computers is considered to only contain the principle of syntax as opposed to thinking which contains both syntax and semantics. I believe, along with Searle, that semantics is necessary in order to be said to have a mind and therefore be said to be thinking. Searle’s Chinese Room argument articulates this …show more content…
The many modes of processing thought listed above can be further rendered down to the firing of neurons, which as well can be said to be a binary system; consisting of being in the state of firing or not firing. There still remains however a very substantial difference between the two fundamental actions. That difference is rooted in the equipment used to engage in the two respective actions. Searle believes that no computer program will ever obtain intentionality because a computer is not composed of the same biological components as the human brain. This wetware that is the human brain may in fact be necessary for thinking. The wetware of the brain is in many ways inferior to the hardware of a computer and this difference of capability further divides the concepts of computing and thinking. The efficiency of thinking is not nearly as variable as the efficiency of computing. The rate at which a computer computes is determined by the quality of its core processors, the software, the amount of RAM etc. Each of these components are easily upgraded or downgraded and advancements in the fields related to the individual components are happening frequently which consistently increase the quality of computing power that exists. The rate at which someone is able to think about a particular topic is dependent on past experience in which they mostly have no control over and the DNA that they were given at birth. The brain is not subject to upgrades or downgrades in a similar fashion to that of a computer. It is true that learning can upgrade the quality of thought and prolonged lack of exposure to intellectually stimulating environments can somewhat downgrade the quality of thought but these factors resulting changes are far less drastic than that of a computer. Thinking is generally subject to many loose limits for the vast majority of people; limits such as the speed in which thoughts can be processed, the