Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: Wolf Kirchmeir <ElLoboViejo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:33:15 -0400
tvashtar wrote:
I'm wondering if people out there can shed some light on whether or
not Searle considers consciousness to be a non-scientific process?
Searle's argument is that since none of the components of the Chinese Room can understand Chinese, that therefore the Chinese Room can't understand Chinese. That's like arguing that since none of the components of a car can transport a person from A to B, therefore the car can't transport a person from A to B. This argument is a fallacy, since it places the functions of the components at the same level as the functions of the system.
The conscious clerk in the Chinese Room is irrelevant. The clerk is, as described by Searle, simply a pattern-recognition machine, and could be replaced by one without any change in the Chinese Room's operation.
Does this amount to saying that Searle believes consciousness to be "unscientific"? If I knew what you meant, I could answer. Searle IMO believes in the reality of the Soul.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Next by Date: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Next by thread: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
