Functionalism

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Searle’s Response to the Systems Reply 1) It’s absurd to say that the room and the rules can provide understanding 2) What if I memorized all the rules and internalized the whole system. Then there would just be me and I still wouldn’t understand Chinese. Counter-response to Searle’s response If Searle could internalize the rules, part of his brain would understand Chinese. Searle’s brain would house two personalities: English-speaking Searle and Chinesespeaking system.
The Robot Reply What if the whole system was put inside a robot? Then the system would interact with the world. That would create understanding.
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 and 18: • Searle concludes that symbol ma
Page 19: The Systems Reply Objections Searle
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?