undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfamouswaffles17d ago0 comments

>Secondly, it has been debunked for almost half a century at this point by Searle’s Chinese room thought experiment.

Searles thought experiment is stupid and debunked nothing. What neuron, cell, atom of your brain understands English ? That's right. You can't answer that anymore than you can answer the subject of Searles proposition, ergo the brain is a Chinese room. If you conclude that you understand English, then the Chinese room understands Chinese.

0 comments

runarberg17d ago

You are referring to the systems reply:

> Searle’s response to the Systems Reply is simple: in principle, he could internalize the entire system, memorizing all the instructions and the database, and doing all the calculations in his head. He could then leave the room and wander outdoors, perhaps even conversing in Chinese. But he still would have no way to attach “any meaning to the formal symbols”. The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese. For example, he would not know the meaning of the Chinese word for hamburger. He still cannot get semantics from syntax.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#SystRepl

throw31082217d ago

> The man would now be the entire system, yet he still would not understand Chinese.

Really, here the only issue is Searle's inability to grasp the concept that the process is what does the understanding, not the person (or machine, or neurons) that performs it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse