John Searle's "Chinese Room argument" has been called one of the most famous thought experiments of the 20th century. But here's why it's actually dumb…
Very often, humans cannot see a thing because they willfully ignore it, and pretend it doesnt exist - but then once they finally decide to recognize it, they suddenly turn around and say "Ive discovered this new thing that has never existed before!'
Thats one of many reasons humans are becoming obsolete.
100% agree. The “book” would need to be bigger than the Library of Congress and one second of human thinking would take many years of round-the-clock calculations by the person in the room.
False equivalence. The brain is analogous to a computer the same way it was analogous to a steam engine, the same way it was analogous to phone switching station, the same way it was analogous to words written in a book. You don’t have a coherent analogy b/c you don’t have a coherent theory of information processing systems and a proper ontology of what delineates a steam engine from a phone switching station from words in a book from brains in a jar.
False equivalence means whatever logic is being used does not add up to anything coherent. The brain is a computer started right around the time computers were invented, just like the brain is a steam engine started right around the time steam engines were invented. None of these analogies & equivalences are correct.
Very often, humans cannot see a thing because they willfully ignore it, and pretend it doesnt exist - but then once they finally decide to recognize it, they suddenly turn around and say "Ive discovered this new thing that has never existed before!'
Thats one of many reasons humans are becoming obsolete.
100% agree. The “book” would need to be bigger than the Library of Congress and one second of human thinking would take many years of round-the-clock calculations by the person in the room.
The metaphor is a very misleading intuition pump.
False equivalence. The brain is analogous to a computer the same way it was analogous to a steam engine, the same way it was analogous to phone switching station, the same way it was analogous to words written in a book. You don’t have a coherent analogy b/c you don’t have a coherent theory of information processing systems and a proper ontology of what delineates a steam engine from a phone switching station from words in a book from brains in a jar.
You are arguing against Searle? Or for Searle? I... cannot tell.
(I mean, I can guess "for" if I read other things in your Substack, but do you get why "false equivalence" cuts both ways here?)
False equivalence means whatever logic is being used does not add up to anything coherent. The brain is a computer started right around the time computers were invented, just like the brain is a steam engine started right around the time steam engines were invented. None of these analogies & equivalences are correct.
To avoid hostile territory I will choose to map the string of symbols you returned to "yes" rather than "no".