Chinese Room Experiment:
• Searle, who has no knowledge of Chinese, is locked in a room with a large batch of Chinese writing (the script). He is given a 2nd batch (the story) and a 3rd batch (the questions) with a set of rules in English. These batches allow him to correlate the symbols to one another in previous sets and give responses back with Chinese symbols (the answers).
• Searle argues that just because he answered the questions correctly in Chinese, it does not mean that he understands the story and therefore, computer programs do not understand, they merely function.
Systems Reply Argument:
• It is true that the person does not understand the story, but he is a part of a whole system that understands the story, much like a computer and its programs.
• The …show more content…
There is nothing in the system that is not in him. If he is not in the room and he internalizes the rules, calculations, and Chinese symbols, then he is the system, and the system does not understand Chinese.
2. The two subsystems are completely different. The English one knows what the stories are about and is consciously answering questions, while the Chinese one can only link symbols together. The Chinese subsystem is a subsystem for the English one since the list of rules is written in English. For his second argument within his second response, Searle says that the only reason for saying that he has a Chinese subsystem is that the subsystem has a program and can pass the Turing test. This calls the test into question, as both his subsystems do not equally understand Chinese and English.
3. If all that was necessary for cognition was that he had an input and an output with a program in between, then all kinds of noncognitive systems could be mistaken for cognitive systems, like the digestive system. If we accept the systems reply, there is no way to distinguish the motivation for saying the Chinese subsystem understands from saying that the stomach
• Searle, who has no knowledge of Chinese, is locked in a room with a large batch of Chinese writing (the script). He is given a 2nd batch (the story) and a 3rd batch (the questions) with a set of rules in English. These batches allow him to correlate the symbols to one another in previous sets and give responses back with Chinese symbols (the answers).
• Searle argues that just because he answered the questions correctly in Chinese, it does not mean that he understands the story and therefore, computer programs do not understand, they merely function.
Systems Reply Argument:
• It is true that the person does not understand the story, but he is a part of a whole system that understands the story, much like a computer and its programs.
• The …show more content…
There is nothing in the system that is not in him. If he is not in the room and he internalizes the rules, calculations, and Chinese symbols, then he is the system, and the system does not understand Chinese.
2. The two subsystems are completely different. The English one knows what the stories are about and is consciously answering questions, while the Chinese one can only link symbols together. The Chinese subsystem is a subsystem for the English one since the list of rules is written in English. For his second argument within his second response, Searle says that the only reason for saying that he has a Chinese subsystem is that the subsystem has a program and can pass the Turing test. This calls the test into question, as both his subsystems do not equally understand Chinese and English.
3. If all that was necessary for cognition was that he had an input and an output with a program in between, then all kinds of noncognitive systems could be mistaken for cognitive systems, like the digestive system. If we accept the systems reply, there is no way to distinguish the motivation for saying the Chinese subsystem understands from saying that the stomach