Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on John R. Searle and His “Chinese Room Argument”. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page
report discusses the 20th century philosophical writer John R.
Searle’s “Chinese Room Argument” and the ways in which “Strong
AI” (artificial intelligence) is actually a faulty premise. The
point he makes is that it may be possible hand out the
appropriate and even accurate answers and that those responses
may serve to connect with the expectations of those asking the
questions in a situation in which a reader is connecting symbols
without any awareness of their individual meaning. However, it
does not indicate that any real understanding has taken place or
that any sort of meaning is actually attached to the question and
answer process that is taking place. Bibliography lists one
source.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_BWjrsear.doc
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the ability to "think" just because it has been fed the "correct" computer program that he calls "Strong AI" (artificial intelligence). However, he points out that "Strong AI" misses
the basic point that any software program is simply a framework that designates the ways in which certain symbols are managed. That manipulation cannot be, under any definition or
circumstance, be considered actual thought. Searle uses what has come to be known as the "Chinese Room Argument." The Chinese Room Argument The premise of the Chinese room argument
is that a person with absolutely no understanding of the Chinese language is placed in a room that has baskets full of Chinese symbols. He is given a book
in English that supposedly identifies the symbols and explains that they are entirely identified and related to one another by their shapes. As Searle explains how it works: ".
. . people outside the room who understand Chinese hand in small bunches of symbols and that in response I manipulate the symbols according to the rule book and hand
back more small bunches of symbols. Now, the rule book is the computer program. The people who wrote it are programmers, and I am the computer. The baskets
full of symbols are the data base. The small bunches that are handed in to me are questions and the bunches I then hand out are the answers" (pp. 755).
The point he makes is that he may hand out the appropriate and even accurate answers and that those responses may serve to connect with the expectations of
those asking the questions. However, it does not indicate that any real understanding has taken place or that any sort of meaning is actually attached to the question and
...