more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 3496

[filed under theme 17. Mind and Body / C. Functionalism / 7. Chinese Room ]

Full Idea

A computer, me for example, could run the steps in the program for some mental capacity, such as understanding Chinese, without understanding a word of Chinese.

Gist of Idea

A program for Chinese translation doesn't need to understand Chinese

Source

John Searle (The Rediscovery of the Mind [1992], Ch. 9.II)

Book Ref

Searle,John R.: 'The Rediscovery of the Mind' [MIT 1999], p.200


A Reaction

I don't think this is true. I could recite a bit of Chinese without comprehension, but giving flexible answers to complex questions isn't plausible just by gormlessly implementing a procedure.


The 61 ideas from 'The Rediscovery of the Mind'

Searle argues that biology explains consciousness, but physics won't explain biology [Searle, by Kriegel/Williford]
Meaning is derived intentionality [Searle]
Property dualism is the reappearance of Cartesianism [Searle]
Reality is entirely particles in force fields [Searle]
Philosophy of language is a branch of philosophy of mind [Searle]
Property dualists tend to find the mind-body problem baffling [Searle]
Consciousness is a brain property as liquidity is a water property [Searle]
Other minds are not inferred by analogy, but are our best explanation [Searle]
Mental states only relate to behaviour contingently, not necessarily [Searle]
You can only know the limits of knowledge if you know the other side of the limit [Searle]
We don't postulate folk psychology, we experience it [Searle]
Functionalists like the externalist causal theory of reference [Searle]
We don't have a "theory" that other people have minds [Searle]
Either there is intrinsic intentionality, or everything has it [Searle]
There is no such thing as 'wide content' [Searle]
Pain is not intentional, because it does not represent anything beyond itself [Searle]
Consciousness seems indefinable by conditions or categories [Searle]
I cannot observe my own subjectivity [Searle]
Neither introspection nor privileged access makes sense [Searle]
Conscious creatures seem able to discriminate better [Searle]
Mind and brain don't interact if they are the same [Searle]
Some properties depend on components, others on their relations [Searle]
Fully 'emergent' properties contradict our whole theory of causation [Searle]
Reduction can be of things, properties, ideas or causes [Searle]
If mind is caused by brain, does this mean mind IS brain? [Searle]
Property dualism denies reductionism [Searle]
Mind and brain are supervenient in respect of cause and effect [Searle]
Solidity in a piston is integral to its structure, not supervenient [Maslin on Searle]
Is supervenience just causality? [Searle, by Maslin]
Upwards mental causation makes 'supervenience' irrelevant [Searle]
If mind-brain supervenience isn't causal, this implies epiphenomenalism [Searle]
Mental events can cause even though supervenient, like the solidity of a piston [Searle]
The mind experiences space, but it is not experienced as spatial [Searle]
We experience unity at an instant and across time [Searle]
Consciousness is essential and basic to intentionality [Searle]
Perception is a function of expectation [Searle]
Introspection is just thinking about mental states, not a special sort of vision [Searle]
Water flowing downhill can be described as if it had intentionality [Searle]
Wanting H2O only differs from wanting water in its mental component [Searle]
Unconscious thoughts are those capable of causing conscious ones [Searle]
Without internal content, a zombie's full behaviour couldn't be explained [Searle]
Intentional phenomena only make sense within a background [Searle]
Beliefs only make sense as part of a network of other beliefs [Searle]
Beliefs are part of a network, and also exist against a background [Searle]
Content is much more than just sentence meaning [Searle]
Memory is mainly a guide for current performance [Searle]
Intentionality is defined in terms of representation [Searle]
Shared Background makes translation possible, though variation makes it hard [Searle]
A program for Chinese translation doesn't need to understand Chinese [Searle]
If mind is multiply realisable, it is possible that anything could realise it [Searle]
Computation isn't a natural phenomenon, it is a way of seeing phenomena [Searle]
Can the homunculus fallacy be beaten by recursive decomposition? [Searle]
Computation presupposes consciousness [Searle]
If we are computers, who is the user? [Searle]
Mind involves fighting, fleeing, feeding and fornicating [Searle]
Chemistry entirely explains plant behaviour [Searle]
Consciousness results directly from brain processes, not from some intermediary like information [Searle]
The function of a heart depends on what we want it to do [Searle]
We explain behaviour in terms of actual internal representations in the agent [Searle]
Universal grammar doesn't help us explain anything [Searle]
Correspondence to the facts HAS to be the aim of enquiry [Searle]