We have discussed materialism at length. For the purpose of this essay, I will first give a quick overview of what materialism is. I will then discuss an objection made by Searle in his “The Chinese Room”. I will then discuss how a materialist might answer this objection. I will conclude with whether or not this answer was satisfactory or not. Materialism is, in essence, the idea that matter is what makes a human being what they are. There is nothing more than matter and physical structures that make us what we are. We are as Bison suggests “thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming Meat. The meat is the whole deal.” Our consciousness emerges out of matter and this consciousness is events among material things. There
…show more content…
Searle develops the argument of The Chinese Room. The Chinese Room is a room in which a man who does not know Chinese is given a book with instructions on which characters to produce when given a certain set of characters. These things are comparable to a computer and its program. The rule book is the computer program, the man in the room is the computer, and the people inputting characters from outside the room are the programmers. When the person inside the room is given a set of characters it would seem that he knows Chinese because he can respond and have a conversation. However, he does not know Chinese he is simply following the rule book. Searle argues that this is how computers work. They do not truly know the data they are handling; they are simply manipulating the symbols. This does not guarantee that computers can become conscious because there is no intentionality behind their symbols. By this Searle says that we cannot get meaning out of rule-based things like computers. We cannot get meaning from these things because these machines are purely a matter of symbol manipulation and nothing more.
Furthermore, Searle argues that the machines that imitate a brain can be compared to a Chinese Gymnasium. There would be several men in the gym that do not speak Chinese however, much like the Chinese room they would have the rule book. Each man resembles the synapses
Searle develops the argument of The Chinese Room. The Chinese Room is a room in which a man who does not know Chinese is given a book with instructions on which characters to produce when given a certain set of characters. These things are comparable to a computer and its program. The rule book is the computer program, the man in the room is the computer, and the people inputting characters from outside the room are the programmers. When the person inside the room is given a set of characters it would seem that he knows Chinese because he can respond and have a conversation. However, he does not know Chinese he is simply following the rule book. Searle argues that this is how computers work. They do not truly know the data they are handling; they are simply manipulating the symbols. This does not guarantee that computers can become conscious because there is no intentionality behind their symbols. By this Searle says that we cannot get meaning out of rule-based things like computers. We cannot get meaning from these things because these machines are purely a matter of symbol manipulation and nothing more.
Furthermore, Searle argues that the machines that imitate a brain can be compared to a Chinese Gymnasium. There would be several men in the gym that do not speak Chinese however, much like the Chinese room they would have the rule book. Each man resembles the synapses