14

This is one of the most important issues in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. The most famous philosophical argument that attempts to address this issue is the Chinese Room argument published by the philosopher John Searle in 1980. The argument is quite simple. Suppose that you are inside a room and you need to communicate (in a written form) ...


6

It depends on the definition of (artificial) intelligence. The position that Searle originally tried to refute with the Chinese room experiment was the so-called position of strong AI: An appropriately programmed computer would have a mind in the exact same sense as humans have minds. Alan Turing tried to give an definition of artificial intelligence ...


6

There are two broad types of responses to philosophical queries like this. The first is to make analogies and refer to intuition; one could, for example, actually calculate the necessary size for such a Chinese room, and suggest that it exists outside the realm of intuition and thus any analogies using it are suspect. The second is to try to define the ...


5

I recently came across a neat definition of understanding in Roger Schank's Dynamic Memory: Basically, you store everything you experience in your memory, but you need to index it in order to be able to use it for processing. Obviously, all experiences are slightly different, eg going to a restaurant is broadly the same, but the details vary. So you need to ...


5

First of all, for a detailed view of the argument, check out the SEP entry on the Chinese Room. I consider the CRA as an indicator of you definition of intelligence. If the argument holds, yes, the person in the room understands Chinese. However, let's sum up the three replies discussed in the SEP entry: The man himself doesn't understand Chinese (he ...


4

If you check the Wikipedia article on the argument that you linked, in the History section, you'll note the following statement: Most of the discussion consists of attempts to refute it. I think this directly answers the question, Why is the Chinese Room argument such a big deal? The Chinese Room Argument was a relatively early attempt in the ...


3

Depends on who you ask! John Searle, who proposed this argument, would say "yes", but others would say it is irrelevant. The Turing Test does not stipulate that a machine must actually "understand" what it is doing, as long as it seems that way to a human. You could argue that our "thinking" is only a more sophisticated form of clever algorithmics.


1

Searle's Chinese room is analogical and is intended to present an easy-to-understand picture of the essential elements and processes of the digital computer. In the room the man (CPU) has a book of intructions (program) for responding to Chinese input questions. That is just one program of many possible programs the room could run. Each different program ...


1

The Chinese room argument is such a big deal because it takes the concept of the Turing machine and Turing's conception of the electronic digital computer (so-called) as a practical version of the universal Turing machine, and shows that the resulting concept of machine computation does not allow the creation of an internal semantics (knowledge). Explaining ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible