Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 15:49:25 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 15:04:28, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 14:07:36, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On March 14, 2001 at 13:03:27, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: >> >>> http://personalidentity.tripod.com/id27.htm >> >> >>Part 2 is a real bullshit. The author tries to demonstrate that computers do not >>"know" chess, and he actually demonstrates that he does not "know" computers and >>that he does not "know" the human brain. >> >>I have heard more meaningful comments in a pub, even very late at night. > >Ah yes, Searle's argument is clearly refuted by the well known reasoning: >'Christophe says it is bullshit, therefore it is bullshit'. I happen to >disagree with Searle's Chinese Room argument, but I don't think its as clear as >just saying it is a pile of crap. In fact, I think he makes some very good >points. > >Peter > >> >> >> Christophe I tend to agree with Peter. Searle's argument is based on a simple stipulation that the coded instructions of a program (Chinese character manipulation program in the given case) are insufficient to account for the meanings of the symbols or of the set of sentences generated with their help. This, further, implies that functional, or computational, explanations are insufficient to account for referential semantics (plain English: reference), and, as such, for intentionality which is the hallmark of humans. This kind of argument can be criticised, but not dismissed lightly. I've been having problems for quite some time with it :-)) *** Djordje
This page took 0.03 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.