Quote:
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian  It was not a retraction. His point is that people misunderstand his argument.
He thinks the brain is a machine and that it produces consciousness. Therefore it is perfectly possible for a machine to think. Moreover brains can sometimes compute eg it can add up 2 + 2 to equal 4. So with a sufficiently broad definition of computer brains are computers, therefore computers can think.
But computers as we think of them i.e digital computers, no matter how complex, could never be conscious.
I didn't think you could have possibly been correct. It's strange though. I often find if I dig into what skeptics claim I find what they say to be simply incorrect, or at least deeply misleading. |
Remember what the target originally was and not what Searle later shifted the target to. The original target was "Strong AI" but now Searle admits that the argument doesn't target the thesis that "the appropriately programmed computer literally has cognitive states." What Searle does is change the target and redefines "Strong AI" as the view that "the mind is a computer program." So his new target is
Computationalism. There is a considerable logical and epistemological gap in this change of target from AI to computationalism. Also, there are more problems with his argument(s) directed at his target(s). Click here to find out:
The Chinese Room Argument
--------------------