http://436chi-lounge.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-room-argument.html?showComment=1295544602852#c6868972653454445770
http://tamucsce436-2011a.blogspot.com/2011/01/chinese-room.html?showComment=1295544968554#c5550863390407005603
Reference Information
Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Science.
John R. Searle
Summary
This paper proposes a thought experiment to which the author posits that a computer program could never truly "think" in the definition that humans think. The understanding of a machine and what its true potential is gone over throughout the paper and how it will always lack something. Strong AI is argued against which is basically defined as having inputs and outputs to reach the same level as a human brain. The machine would never truly "understand" what is being processed so it would therefore not be a human mind.
Discussion
This idea proposed is interesting in its own right and sounds plausible. However, I believe that the definitions in the paper need to be looked at closer to truly grasp what "understanding" and "thinking" really mean. I think it could be achieved through passing a much more thorough Turing test. Also, if true quantum computers ever come to fruition, this could change a lot of what Searle was saying.
I agree that the terms "understanding" and "thinking" need to be looked at closer for this case. After reading other peoples thoughts and looking more into this experiment I want to say this seems like a case of user interpretation and perspective more than I thought so originally.
ReplyDeleteI had not thought about how quantum computing could be a game changer in this experiment. It seems to be the force to reckon with in this case as well as in other fields such as cryptography. His paper could seriously be challenged in the upcoming years I guess.
ReplyDelete