Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The Chess Room Argument [by John R. Searle]

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 21:26:35 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.



He is just falling in the classical circular trap about "meaning", "knowledge"
and "intelligence".

That's a serious failure, IMO.



    Christophe



This page took 0 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.