John Searle is famous for the Chinese Room experiment - even though the person understands syntax (grammar), they do not understand semantics (meaning). I believe this is wrong, because what is the definition of "understanding something?" In the Chinese Room, you receive Chinese characters, and then look up the proper response symbols without knowing Chinese. The question is - what is a proper response?
For example, if the Chinese characters given as input were "What's your favorite food?" The person must understand the CONCEPTS of favorites and food in order to give a proper reply. The fact that they look up symbols in a Chinese rulebook is unimportant to the intelligence that operates in making that decision. (It's called the "Systems" argument).
Here, this will make more sense; I am thinking of how to reply. The abstract thoughts then get translated into my mind into English language words, and the individual letters that compose those words. The knowledge of what letters compose the words direct my fingers on the keyboard.
Searle is focused on the keyboard - a minor part of the process. Intelligence is the decision as to WHICH concepts you can convey through the keyboard.
If a being says it's conscious, it is. Since it is sapient, it deserves the same right as humans. If anything, we better hope it doesn't turn on us and turn into a "paperclip maximizer."
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
