Functionalism

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What could produce real understanding? Searle: “it is a biological phenomenon” and “only something with the same causal powers as brains can have [understanding]”.
The Systems Reply Objections Searle is part of a larger system. Searle doesn’t understand Chinese, but the whole system (Searle + room + rules) does understand Chinese. The knowledge of Chinese is in the rules contained in the room. The ability to implement that knowledge is in Searle. The whole system understands Chinese.
Page 1 and 2: Functionalism Some context from: St
Page 3 and 4: Functionalism defined as inputs and
Page 5 and 6: No matter if you interpret function
Page 7 and 8: The Chinese Room Argument
Page 9 and 10: The Turing Test In 1950, a computer
Page 11 and 12: Searle’s Chinese Room Argument Jo
Page 13 and 14: Summary of Searle’s Chinese Room
Page 15 and 16: Grailog: Classes, Instances, Relati
Page 17: • Searle concludes that symbol ma
Page 21 and 22: The Robot Reply What if the whole s
Page 23 and 24: Searle’s response to the Robot Re
Page 25 and 26: Complexity changes everything. Our
Page 27 and 28: Searle’s criticism of strong AI
Page 29 and 30: animate inanimate Instances tangibl
Page 31 and 32: A theory claiming two assertions ov
Page 33 and 34: 2) Functionalism Functionalists can
Page 35 and 36: 4) Syntax vs. Semantics • How can
Page 37 and 38: 6) Searle claims that only biologic
Page 39: On the Chinese Room: More optional

Functionalism

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?