Searles Case Study

Searles Case Study
The article Sports and the Assumption of Risk Doctrine in New York, opened my eyes to the various
cases that pertain to college student–athletes and the manner in which injury cases have historically
been managed. In my research, the 1996 case of Searles v. Trustee of St. Joseph's highlights the need
for guidelines to neutralize student–athlete and administrator responsibilities as it relates to injuries.
Searles alleged that he informed his basketball coach and trainer of a knee injury, which was later
diagnosed as patellar tendinitis. Searles claims that his coach demanded that he continue playing
after, even though his athletic trainer did not agree. Searles subsequently ended his college
basketball career and underwent two surgeries
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Searle's Ideas
When Searle talks about institutional facts I believe that he has great insight into the way people
take items and place values on them. These values are universally accepted and become a social
reality in our social world. These social realities have functions that man has assigned to them to
dictate what they are intended to do. I will walk through Searle's features needed in a social reality
and it will become clear that all social realities have these features. But where Searle ideas are
flawed is when he says that there are no functions found in nature, and it is also my aim to expose
this flaw in his foundation of his ideas of social reality. I believe that for social reality to have
Searle's posited features makes sense, but it ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For example, the function of the university would be to educate students and the function of
government would be to govern people. But Searle tries and makes everything that has functionality
"relative to a system of values" (Searle, 15.) He also says that "functions...are always observer
relative" (Searle, 14.) With these statements, he is saying that all things that have functions are
imposed by the person that is observing the function and that no function is ever intrinsic or found in
nature. To further his point he gives an example that by our observation we can say that "the heart
pumps blood, [but we cannot say that]...the function of the heart is to pump blood" (Searle, 14.) This
is because we would be imposing our subjective value on what we see the heart doing because we
value life over death. My problem with this thinking is that the heart must be alive to pump blood,
which is its normal state, and if I did value death over life, then the heart would die and decompose
into a matter that is not a heart. Therefore the heart in its natural state is alive and pumping blood,
which means that "the function of the heart is to pump blood" (Searle, 14.) This is the same when
we say that the function of the eyes is to see,

Minds, Brain And Programs By John R. Searle
In "Minds, Brains and Programs" by John R. Searle exposed his opinion about how computers can
not have Artificial intelligence (Al). Searle portraits this claim about computers through an
experiment he created called the "Chinese Room" where he shows that computers are not
independent operating systems and that they do not have minds. In order to understand better the
experiment Searle demonstrates the contrast between strong and weak Al, which later through my
paper I will explain what this means. In what follows, I will explain what Searle's "Chinese Room"
experiment is, and what does it, according to him, demonstrate. I will also argue how I agree with
his conclusion because I believe that computer cannot think. 265 The "Chinese Room" ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
108 I agree with Searle conclusion because I do believe that computers do not have a mind because
humans and computers are really different from each other. Computers are good in storing and
displaying information, accessing the internet, etc but computers would not be able to do this stuff if
they did not have a program that tells them what to do. Computers cannot have feeling because they
are not human beings. They do not feel cold or heat, does not get sad or happy because it is just a
device that contains a set of data and programs that only serves to give and receive all possible
information. 78 All things considered, John Searle's "Chinese room" experiment explained how it is
impossible for a computer to have a mind. Searle demonstrates what the "Chinese Room" is by
arguing against Strong Al and saying that does not exist. As I have argued, I agreed with Searle
opinion because a computer without the right programming would not be able to understand. Thus,
Searle succeed in providing an adequate reason to believe his claim that computers are not
independent

The Chinese Room : Mental Experiment By John Searle
Mind, brains and programs The Chinese Room is a mental experiment, originally proposed by John
Searle and popularized by Roger Penrose, which attempts to counter the validity of the Turing Test
and the belief that a machine can come to think. Searle faces the analogy between mind and
computer when it comes to addressing the issue of consciousness. The mind involves not only the
manipulation of symbols, but also has a syntax and a semantics. Searle in his Mind, Brain and
programs text, attacks this thought, and with the China Room experiment he showed how a machine
can perform an action without even understanding what it does and why it does it. Therefore
according to Searle the logic used by computers is nothing more than one that ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Given this situation, one should ask: How can Searle respond if he does not understand the Chinese
language? Do manuals know Chinese? Can the whole room system (dictionaries, Searle and their
answers) be considered as a system that understands Chinese? According to the creators of the
experiment, proponents of strong artificial intelligence – those who claim that adequate computer
programs can understand natural language or possess other properties of the human mind, not
simply simulate them – must admit that either the room understands the Chinese language, or
passing the Turing test is not enough proof of intelligence. For the creators of the experiment none
of the components of the experiment includes Chinese, and therefore, even if the set of components
exceeds the test, the test does not confirm that the person actually understands Chinese, since as we
know Searle does not know that language. If Strong Artificial Intelligence is true, there is a program
for the Chinese language such that any mechanism that executes it understands Chinese. A person
can mechanically run a program for the Chinese language without understanding the Chinese
language. The arguments of strong artificial intelligence are false because in fact the system does
not understand Chinese, nothing else

Frankl and Searle: Analysis of the Difficulties of Life
Frankl and Searle:
An Analysis of the Difficulties of Life The meaning of life has been debated by some of the most
illustrious minds of the twentieth century. In fact, this particular, complex concept has always been a
topic of discussion, as long as man has walked the earth. The dictionary states the life is "the act or
process, or a manner of growing; development; gradual increase," but in reality, life is much more
than this simple definition. The following paragraphs will discuss the complexities of life from two
standpoints: that of Viktor Frankl and John Searle.
The first point to be discussed here is the answer to the question of how Victor Frankl would answer
the following: what does it mean to be human? From various readings, one can certainly see the
author's point on life, love, suffering and humor. Human, for the author, can mean, a variety of
things. First of all, humanity is transitory, and humans are on earth for a very short time. Frankl also
discusses, in his writing, how humans face all the transitory events that life has to offer, and
especially how they deal with death. To the author, being human means all these things, and
especially realizing that life is infinite and that humans are not immortal, and subsequently dealing
with this realization. Frankl states, in this regard,
"Only under the threat and pressure of death does it make sense to do what we can and should, right
now. That is, to make proper use of the moment's offer of a meaning to

A Conversation between Descartes and Searle
Descartes: One of my greatest powers is the ability to think, considering that it is essentially the only
thing that I am unable to doubt.
Searle: I partly agree to your statement, but I observe that you are inclined to ignore the concept of
technology and the wonders that it can perform. Furthermore, just as you are able to persuade other
individuals in thinking that they make decisions for themselves, it is probable that someone else
influences you and the decisions that you make without allowing you to understand that you are
being manipulated.
D: Oh, but I'm afraid that you got the wrong impression regarding my thinking. I did not say that I
cannot be manipulated, as I simply claimed that me being able to doubt everything but my ability to
doubt is equivalent to me having free will. I will always be able to doubt things and this stands as
proof that my mind is different from my body as a consequence of the fact that it is thinking.
S: It is very likely that information that has been produced consequent to your death made it easier
for me to look at things and that I am better prepared to understand how the mind works. As I said,
you tend to ignore the fact that technology has advanced greatly and that the Age of Technology
provides individuals with a lot of information that they can use with the purpose of developing
arguments to support particular points of view.
D: I did not say that I am not amazed with the way that technology advanced in the twentieth and

Questions On The Chinese Room
In Minds, Brains, and Programs John Searle objects to Computational Theory of Mind (CTM),
particularly that running a program on a computer and manipulating symbols does not mean that the
computer has understanding, or more generally a mind. In this paper I will first explain Searle's
Chinese Room, then I will explain CTM and how it relates to the Chinese Room. Following this I
will describe how the Chinese Room attacks the CTM. Next I will explain the Systems Reply to the
Chinese Room and how the Systems Reply actually undermines Searle's conclusion in the Chinese
Room. Then I will describe Searle's response to the Systems Reply and how that response
undermines the Systems Reply. Lastly, I will evaluate Searle's reply to the Systems Reply and
defend the Systems Reply against the points Searle raises against the Systems Reply. To explain the
Chinese Room I will first explain the instructions in the Chinese room; then I will explain how the
man inside the room manipulates these instructions. Finally, given that the man only operates the
instructions, Searle's conclusion is that the man does not understand Chinese. Therefore, the whole
system does not understand Chinese. The instructions in the room are a complex set of rules that
guide the man inside to receive inputs and produce outputs all written in Chinese. The instructions,
written in English, tell the man "if you see this Chinese symbol paired with this Chinese symbol put
down these Chinese symbols, or if

Searle Vs Sartre
With philosophy, nothing is black and white. Deciphering philosophical views is unlike anything
else because there is more depth and analysis that has to be put into play. It is about understanding
what the philosopher is trying to get across while making inferences about what they truly mean or
could mean. The thing about it is that at some times it tends to be a contradiction within itself: while
certain things can be true under certain circumstances, the opposite could be true under different
circumstances. Many ideas are hard to grasp and can be interpreted in various ways depending on
how people want to take it. One can say that John Searle and Jean–Paul Sartre have a plethora of
beliefs in common yet really none at all. If they were assessing each other's views, they would agree
and disagree on their stances on different topics. While Searle may believe one thing some ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Man is born, and then he defines himself. I believe that Searle would disagree with this. He would
say that our brain and its predetermined functions play a large role in everyday decisions and life
choices. Searle almost likes to believe that human are machines in referring to their syntactical
processes. It seems to me that he thinks our brains are wired a certain way, and I do not thing Sartre
could agree. In one conclusion he drew, Searle wrote, "What we mean by that is that mental
processes that we consider to constitute a mind are caused, entirely caused, by processes going on
inside the brain. . . . Brains cause minds" (Searle 39). By this, I believe he means that brains and
minds are part of a human's essence, therefore, he would probably believe that essence precedes
existence. When breaking it down and looking at their perspectives this way, Sartre and Searle differ
greatly. Searle most likely would not agree with that main theme in Sartre's

Essay about John Searle's Chinese Room Argument
John Searle's Chinese Room Argument The purpose of this paper is to present John Searle's Chinese
room argument in which it challenges the notions of the computational paradigm, specifically the
ability of intentionality. Then I will outline two of the commentaries following, the first by Bruce
Bridgeman, which is in opposition to Searle and uses the super robot to exemplify his point. Then I
will discuss John Eccles' response, which entails a general agreement with Searle with a few
objections to definitions and comparisons. My own argument will take a minimalist computational
approach delineating understanding and its importance to the concepts of the computational
paradigm. Searle's argument delineates what he believes to be ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Understanding the notion of the Chinese room requires a bit of an explanation. Imagine you are
solely an English speaking person in a room by yourself, armed with a pencil, and the only things on
the walls are a series of instructions and rules. There is a door in the room, and on the other side is a
Chinese speaking person. This Chinese speaker is able to slide cards under the door upon which are
written Chinese symbols and sentences. The instructions written on the walls allow you to respond
appropriately to each symbol, well enough so that the Chinese speaker is fooled into thinking you
have a formidable grasp of Chinese. Now imagine that instead of a Chinese speaker outside the
room, there is an English speaker, and the same things are written. You would still respond
appropriately, convincing the other that you are a native English speaker, which of course, you are.
Searle feels that the two positions are unique in that, in the first instance, you are "manipulating
uninterpreted formal symbols," simply an instantiation of a computer program. In the second
instance, you actually understand the English being given to you. In response to the first claim of the
computationalists, Searle states, although you respond appropriately, in no way do you understand
the Chinese that you are being given and responding with. As far as the second condition, he
counterclaims that the computer is simply "functioning and there

Digital Computers Are Not Capable Of Genuine Understanding
Introduction I am going to argue that Searle is correct to claim that digital computers are not capable
of genuine understanding. I believe computers are told what to do without any genuine
understanding of what the computers are doing. It is impossible for a computer programmed
machine to think. Word Count: 48 Exposition Searle believes that machines have no way of
genuinely understanding of what they are doing. He believes that the mind and body are one and
there is no way of a computer interacting the same way a mind and body interact. The mind acts on
causal factors that we have learned from past experiences and emotions. In the Searle's thought
experiment; The Chinese Room, Searle wants to answer if the machine literally ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
All the computer is doing is spitting out predetermined answers to questions received. The Chinese
room experiment fails to produce understanding because computer operations are proper in that they
only respond to the physical form of the symbols. Minds on the other hand have states with
meaning, and they associate those physical symbols to a meaning. So although computers may be
able to manipulate those symbols to produce appropriate responses to natural language input, they
do not understand the sentences they receive or output, for they cannot associate meanings with the
words. Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of
the computer program. He could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, follow the
program's instructions and process them accordingly, and produce Chinese characters as output. If
the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as
well, simply by running the program manually. Searle does not know how to write or speak Chinese
and states that he would not know the difference between Chinese symbols from Japanese symbols.
There is essentially no difference between the role of the machine and himself. They are both using
the same method of reaching the same answer. After this hypothetical experiment, Searle still does
not know how to write, read or speak the Chinese

The Chinese Room Argument Essay
John Searle formulated the Chinese Room Argument in the early 80's as an attempt to prove that
computers are not cognitive operating systems. In short though the immergence of artificial and
computational systems has rapidly increased the infinite possibility of knowledge, Searle uses the
Chinese room argument to shown that computers are not cognitively independent. John Searle
developed two areas of thought concerning the independent cognition of computers. These ideas
included the definition of a weak AI and a strong AI. In essence, these two types of AI have their
fundamental differences. The weak AI was defined as a system, which simply were systems that
simulations of the human mind and AI systems that were characterized as an ... Show more content
The assumption is that the person is capable of understanding Chinese, simply because he can
manage to assemble a set of answers to questions that would be indistiquishable from a person who
speaks Chinese. The problem is that the person in the room does not understand any of the answers,
but is simply following instructions. Searle utilizes a system's ability to pass the Turing test as a
parameter in the study, though the person would still indeed not understand Chinese. Searle
proceeds to refute the claims of strong AI one at a time, by positioning himself as the one who
manipulates the Chinese symbols. The first claim is that a system, which can pass the Turing test,
understands the input and output. Searle replies that as the "computer" in the Chinese room, he gains
no understanding of Chinese by simply manipulating the symbols according to the formal program,
in this case being the complex rules. (Searle, 1980) It was not necessary for the operator to have any
understanding of what the interviewer is asking, or the replies that produced. He may not even know
that there is a question and answer session going on outside the room. The second claim of strong
AI, which Searle objects to, is the claim that the system explains human understanding. Searle
asserts that since the system is functioning, in this case passing the Turing Test, (Brigeman, 1980)
there

Dualism Provides An Explanation For The Mind
Dualism provides an explanation for the relationship to the mind in several ways. The relationship
between the two is a compelling argument that several philosophers make. Although the body is a
psychical existence the mind is utterly non–psychical. The body and mind are innately different
beings and we cannot perceive mind–body dualism with our senses. Humans are aware that
individuals hold psychical and mental entities traced back to psychical sciences including size and
color. Additionally, we hold mental entities including consciousness, beliefs, or experiences that we
cannot trace back to science and ultimately have no explanation for. Initially, psychical properties
are perceived by other individuals with our senses. Our psychical entities are known, everyone can
identify them with their eyes. A few properties like say, an electron in our body are not recognized
with our eyes. As for mental entities only the person feeling the mental state can perceive it. For
example, a person may state they are in pain physically and I may perceive the pain by the behavior
they are exhibiting, but only the person experiencing the suffering will feel it directly. All in all,
mental states are distinctly physical states because we live in an empirical world. Ultimately, all
beings are perceiving the same world separately and in a different way. Dualism states that the
mental and physical experiences are actual but they cannot be related. Moreover, it is difficult to
grasp and

Analysis Of The Book ' Searle 's Chinese Room '
Johnson Lai (400014979)
TA: Andrew Lavigne
Philos 1E03
Searle 's Chinese Room
The Turing Test is a test described by Alan Turing to define whether a robot has indistinguishable
human intelligence or behaviour. John Searle attempts to disprove the theory of the Turing Test
through his Chinese Room thought experiment. In this experiment, Searle proposes that a man
unwittingly communicates to a native speaker through the use of a program. Searle presents the
prepositions that artificial intelligence is solely syntactic and do not constitute conscious
"intention"– that the man in the room did not display knowledge yet communicates through rules
and functions. Through the Chinese Room experiment, Searle attempts to refute functionalism
through the definitions of semantics, intentions, and simulation. However, Searle does not clearly
distinguish the definitions and aspects of the implications of his arguments against the Turing Test;
ultimately, this leads to lack of context and failure to account for all cases against the Test.
Argument 1. "Syntax and semantics". To begin, John Searle takes into account that humans
understand semantics and syntax. That concludes that an intelligent being can demonstrate intention
and consciousness through the use of meaning with semantic symbols or behaviours. Searle 's first
argument is that "programs are purely formal (syntactic)" (Cole, 1). This argument ignores the
science behind how computers and human brains work. The neural

How Did Charles Searles Work
Charles Searles–American Painter Jarrett Lopez July 29, 2015 Professor Harmon, Susan Fine Art
Appreciation Charles Searles was an American painter born in Philadelphia in 1937 and before his
passing in 2004 he was lived in New York. The eldest Charles and his then wife Catherine Hall
Searles. He second of 8 children – his siblings are Phyllis, Charles, Barbara, Frances, Rose,
Catherine, Elizabeth and his only brother, Derrick. Information about Charles Searles is located in
the text book on pages 124–125. More information about Searles was found on the websites;
http://rogallery.com/Searles_Charles/searles–biography.html, A World of Art (7th Edition)
Paperback, July 5, 2012 by Henry M. Sayre. (http://myauctionfinds.com/2015/01/30/charles–
searles–sculpture–in–a–public–library/) ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Green Federal Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was one of Charles Searles, paintings that he
painted in 1975 on a canvas, with dimensions: 9 x 27 feet. Charles joined over 60 group shows and
he also did over 25 solo exhibitions. Charles always kept an association with Philadelphia and he
showed with Sande Webster for over 20 years, she was more than just a gallery owner, she was a
good friend to Charles. She has been known to have said that he was a visionary with artistic
creavtivity with the spirit that inspired everyone that knew Charles.
(http://www.kathleenspicer.com/charles–searles/). "My works are primarily boldly painted wood
sculptures which are free–standing or hang on a wall," Searles said in 1990. He also once said, "I
use flat planes as well as curved surfaces and, although the forms are constantly changing, some
things are often used such as ovular holes in the sculpture.
(http://myauctionfinds.com/2015/01/30/charles–searles–sculpture–in–a–public–library/). This piece
"Looking Ahead" sits in the children's section in the artwork hangs in the West Oak Lane branch of
the Free Library of

Computers And Other Types Of Electronics
For ages the question has been debated, to what do humans owe our thinking abilities and can
computers and other types of electronics have the capacity to think? Over millions of years humans
have developed the capacity to think critically and to have higher intelligent thinking than other
animals. The human brain has evolved to have a prefrontal cortex which is responsible for executive
functioning. These functions include responding to complex problems, maintaining a set behavior,
planning, problem solving, judging a situation, and making good, intellectual choices. With
developments such as these higher functions, humans have the ability to fully comprehend situations
with their minds, and can act at their own free will to make choices, unlike computers. Computers
must be acted upon in order to "think" or to search for an answer. Computers are an invention
created by man. They must be programmed to something, they do not exist or act without the
assistance of man. Since computers are not able to think on their own and must be programmed by
man, a computer should not be considered to know how to think. Thinking is complex in that it
requires you to ponder a choice and for you to comprehend and analyze it to make a final decision.
To think is to contemplate various scenarios and situations and reason. In order to think you must
have an initial thought or idea that was triggered by some type of stimuli. To contemplate such
stimuli you would need a mind or something to

Searle
In his paper "Minds, brains, and programs", Searle makes an argument against the theory of strong
AI, which states that running a program is sufficient for understanding. This view on strong AI is
very closely connected to the theory of computationalism, which claims that the mind is like a
computer, and that thinking is something as simple as symbol manipulation and providing outputs in
response to corresponding input. Searle claims that this belief is unreasonable, and proves it with his
"Chinese room example". Making it obvious that running a program, alone, is not enough of a basis
for understanding. However, while Searle is correct with his assumption, computationalists have
many arguments against his example, stating that he is clearly ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The brain simulator rely hypothesizes a situation where a program is designed doesn't include our
information about the world, but instead, when shown a question, simulates neurons and brainwaves
in the exact same sequence of synapses that would occur when a Chinese speaking individual would
experience when giving the response to the question. This neural processor would simulate a
program where the machine would be able to respond correctly to the questions asked without any
outside knowledge. This simulation would completely mimic the brain of a Chinese speaker, that
does indeed, speak and understand Chinese. Therefore, in this situation, it would be prudent to state
that since the machine is a complete copy of the mind of a person what can obviously speak
Chinese, then consequently, the machine must speak and understand Chinese too (Searle

What Is The Chinese Room Argument
John Searle 1980(in Cooney, 2000), provides a thought experiment, commonly referred to as the
Chinese room argument (CRA), to show that computers, programmed to simulate human cognition,
are incapable of understanding language. The CRA requires us to consider a scenario where Searle,
who is illiterate in Chinese, finds himself locked in a room with a book containing Chinese
characters. Additionally, he has another book which has a set of instructions written in English
(which he understands), that allows him to match and manipulate the Chinese characters so that he
can provide appropriate written responses (in Chinese) to incoming questions, which are also written
in Chinese. Moreover, Searle has a pile of blank paper with which he uses to jot down his answers.
Subsequently, Searle becomes so proficient in providing responses that the quality of his answers
matches that of a native Chinese speaker. Thus, Searle in the CR functions as a computer would,
where he is the system while the books are the program and the blank paper acts as storage. Surely,
we can conclude that Searle does not actually understand Chinese, but ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In everyday communication we tend to use the two words interchangeably, believing that the
referent of understanding is the same as the referent of meaning, while sometimes believing that
understanding constitutes meaning (Raatikainen, 2010:2). However, understanding refers to our
knowledge about syntax, arrangement, the what, how and when to do or say things. In this way,
knowledge of understanding (KU) regards formalities in the world. In contrast, knowledge of
meaning (KM) refers to our knowledge of the 'why'. In other words, when we acquire KM we make
'sense' of why we do what we do, when and how we do them. As a result, KU happens mainly
without the appreciation of what our actions or words mean, whereas KM allows us to grasp the
significance of our words and

Mind, Brain By John Searle
John Searle is an American philosopher who was known for creating the thought experiment, the
Chinese room for challenging the idea of strong AI and functionalism. Searle's work, Minds, Brains
and Programs introduces the Chinese room and refutes some objections to the points he brings up.
The Chinese room was created in order to refute the idea of strong AI and the functionalist theory of
mind and is described as follows. Imagine a computer program that can be told a short story and
make inferences about certain details of the story. For example, "Kyle ran into his house after a long
day of school...threw his book bag on the floor and plopped onto the couch. After six hours of
playing Grand Larceny VII, he ate some pizza and fell asleep with a slice on his stomach and his
feet on his book bag...The ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This room has a slit that allows him to receive and return letters but does not allow anyone to see
into the room. Now, suppose he is given 3 batches of Chinese writing. Also, assume that he knows
no Chinese and cannot even distinguish Chinese from Japanese or any other logographic language.
This first batch of Chinese writing is plain Chinese script. The second and third batch each come
with a set of rules written in English which he can read and understand as well as any native English
speaker. The rules accompanying the second batch, allow him to correlate the second batch to the
first batch and allow him to identity each symbol based on its shape. The second set of rules (that
came with the third batch) allow him to correlate the third batch with the first and second batch as
well as how to write Chinese symbols in response to the Chinese symbols given in the third batch.
Suppose that he becomes extremely proficient at manipulating the Chinese symbols and the rules he
is given become so extensive such that he can respond to any query and his responses become
indistinguishable from a native Chinese

Turing, Searle, and Artificial Intelligence
The conditions of the present scenario are as follows: a machine, Siri*, capable of passing the
Turing test, is being insulted by a 10 year old boy, whose mother is questioning the appropriateness
of punishing him for his behavior. We cannot answer the mother's question without speculating as to
what A.M. Turing and John Searle, two 20th century philosophers whose views on artificial
intelligence are starkly contrasting, would say about this predicament. Furthermore, we must
provide fair and balanced consideration for both theorists' viewpoints because, ultimately, neither
side can be "correct" in this scenario. But before we compare hypothetical opinions, we must
establish operant definitions for all parties involved. The characters in ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The answer is no because we cannot accurately determine, from the given information, whether
Siri* understands what she is saying on a deep, emotional level, one requirement for personhood
that both Turing and Searle deem necessary (Searle; Turing). We have no method of measuring
Siri*'s level of understanding outside of the Turing test, which Searle rejects as an accurate
measurement of linguistic understanding. And again, he also rejects the idea that any electronic
machine can possess such understanding whatsoever, so Siri*'s response is essentially meaningless.
Part D: Answering to Amy In response to Amy's initial question, it would be unwise to immediately
present either Turing's or Searle's answer as a correct response. Similarly, it would be unwise to
declare a winning philosophy in this scenario, as the "correct" philosophy depends on the correct
judging criteria, which we lack. Clearly, if Siri* is a person, or judged to be a person based on
certain criteria, then Turing is correct in his assessment; Amy should punish her child. If Siri* is not
a person, then Searle is correct, and Amy would not have significant reason for punishment. But in
this scenario, no judgment criteria are explicitly being applied, nor is one school of thought clearly
more appropriate than the other. Therefore, our only hope of declaring which of the two theories is
correct in this scenario, thereby correctly answering Amy's initial question, is to hypothesize judging

Essay on Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence At a time when computer technology is advancing at a rapid pace and when
software developers are convincingly hawking their products as having artificial intelligence, the
inevitable question has begun to take on a certain urgency: Can a computer think? Really think? In
one form or another this is actually a very old question, dating back to such philosophers as Plato,
Aristotle, and Descartes. And after nearly 3,000 years the most honest answer is still uncertain. After
all, what does it mean to think? On the other hand, that is not a very satisfying answer. However,
with his paper: Minds, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is
convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese speaker. The conclusion proponents of strong
AI would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does. Yet, Searle
asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in
which he receives Chinese symbols, looks them up on look–up table, and returns the Chinese
symbols that are indicated by the table. Searle notes, of course, that he does not understand a word
of Chinese. Furthermore, his lack of understanding goes to show, he argues, that 'computers do not
understand Chinese neither, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless
manipulators of symbols, just as he is – and they do not understand what they are saying, just as he
doesn't.' Searle's Chinese Room Argument seems to be logical initially. Yet, in a view of a system, it
is clear that though Searle himself does not understand Chinese in the thought experiment, it is
perfectly correct to say that Searle plus look–up table understand Chinese. In other words, the entire
computer would understand Chinese, though perhaps the central processor or any other part might
not. It is the entire system that matters

The Argument Of The Chinese Room ( CR )
The Chinese Room (CR) is a thought experiment intended to prove that a computer cannot have a
mental life with a strong sense of intelligence alike to one that humans possess because a computer
does not have a genuine understanding. Rather, a computer is a mere simulator of understanding,
and by extension, a simulator of intelligence. According to John Searle, because computers lack a
true understanding they are rendered incapable of possessing mental life as we know and experience
it (Searle 2004). In the following paper, I intend to explain and philosophically examine John
Searle's argument of CR and will then proceed to reject his theory based on a series of objections. I
will do this by examining the concept of "human intelligence" through a filmic analogy, put forth the
Systems Reply objection, and examine how the CR argument is foregrounded in anthropocentric
bias that presupposes only humans are capable of true intelligence. Overall, I argue that CR fails to
convincingly argue that only humans can possess a "human" intelligence because it is an argument
based more on intuitive claims, than sound reasoning. As promised, I begin by outlining the main
crux of the Chinese Room argument. If you imagine a sealed room where through a slot you can
submit questions written in Chinese and you can receive answers in Chinese, your inclination is
more than likely going to be to assume that whomever resides within the room understands, and is
able to, communicate in Chinese.

Kim V. Searle
Much like the course any sporting event is bounded by the rules of the game, the course of any
philosophical discussion is bounded by the ideas accepted as axioms. A game of soccer in which the
players were permitted to hold the ball in their hands would be radically different, even
incomparable to a traditional game, even if all other factors (weather, location, player's skill) were
physically identical. In much the same way, although both begin with the same set of facts
(materially closed universe, constant physical laws) Jaegwon Kim's view on mental causation is
radically different from Searle's, because they approach the issue from different philosophical
perspectives. Neither is wrong, if you reason using their principles. Neither is ... Show more content
Their dissension stems not from one being fundamentally right or wrong, but from different
assumptions. Kim accuses Searle of "Causal Over–Determination." He sees Searle as claiming that
not only does m(F) cause m(G), but also that F causes G in an equally real way. Since m(G) is the
true cause of G, the F to G causation must be illusory. Searle could likewise accuse Kim of "Causal
Over–Distinction," arguing that m(F) is indistinguishable from F, and in that both together as one
cause [m(G)+G].
In addition, Searle would say that Kim is making a fundamental mistake in thinking of mental states
as being caused by physical states (related temporally), rather than existing simultaneously. This
limits Kim's thinking, as two events related causally in this way cannot by definition be the same
event. Searle suggests that we include a sort of "permanent causation," by which molecular
structures doesn't cause hardness, but rather is hardness.
There is, as Searle rightly points out however, a ragged hole in Kim's conclusion. Kim asserts, as if
to appease us, that mental states are both epiphenomenal and causal. By describing mental states as
"superveniently causal," i.e. appearing to be causal based on the true causality of their
microproperties, he has satisfied Hume's requirements for causation, i.e. that causation itself is

Searle's Systems Reply
In anticipation of possible replies to his findings, Searle explained the possible arguments against
his Chinese room thought experiment and replied to them. In one of these arguments, Searle
explains what he calls the "Systems Reply." In this reply, although the man in the Chinese room
himself is unable to understand Chinese, the system as a whole, the man, the prompting screen, the
rule book, etc., does understand. In rebuttal, Searle simply supposes that the man internalizes all of
the knowledge of the transition from the questions in Chinese to the answers in Chinese. The man,
as a system, is now able to hear the Chinese characters prompted to him and respond based off the
rule book that he memorized. Searle argues that this eliminates ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The system has proven its ability to identify different symbols, what they mean, what to respond
with and ultimately responding. In this way, it is possible for the man in the box to have endless
conversations with endless native Chinese speakers without their knowledge that he does not
understand Chinese. Although the man in the box does not understand Chinese, the system has
demonstrated the ability to understand it. In this, the man in the box does not understand Chinese,
nor does any other singular part of the room. However, when all parts of the system work together,
the entire system can mimic the understanding of Chinese. Chinese speakers (all speakers for that
matter) manipulate symbols in a formal system to communicate, just as the system demonstrates the
ability to do. The formal manipulation of symbols constitutes an understanding of the symbols, the
syntax and the rules that follow. This directly shows that the computer could have understanding as
it has the 'knowledge' and the ability to manipulate symbols in speaking

Summary Of John Searle's Chinese Room Argument
In the Chinese room argument presented by John Searle, he argues that programs are not minds.
Premises that Searle gives for this claim is that programs are entirely formal (syntactical) and mind
have semantic. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. In this paper, I
will argue that Searle's argument is misleading us, because Searle's claim is based on that
understanding (mind) occurs if and only if computer knows human language semantic. Searle's
Chinese room argument is suppose that he is locked in a room with two windows (one has I on the
outside and another has O on the outside which means that Input and output). He does not
understand Chinese at all (neither writing, reading, nor speaking) .These ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The precondition is based on the assumption "artificial Intelligence can perform any intellectual
tasks that a human being can (in other words, behave exactly like human being)." We cannot make
any hypothesis to artificial intelligence until the assumption comes true. For example, we make up
an assumption that if scientists find a way can transplants any gene traits of urritopsis nutricula
(immortal jellyfish) to human being, then we can live forever. This assumption seems reasonable but
the hypothesis is rely on that "if scientists find a way that can transplant any gene traits of urritopsis
nutricula". We cannot say that we can live forever until the assumption becomes true which is that
scientist can transplant any gene traits of urritopsis nutricula to human being. Since, the the
assumption is not real, hypothesizes based on it cannot be real

John Searle
In Minds, Brains, and Programs, John Searle provided various counterarguments to the proposition
that strong artificial intelligence is similar to human cognition and that machines are able to have
similar cognitive experiences as humans, such as having intentions, as long as it has the right
program. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate opposing approaches, which outlined that
the theory of strong AI is flawed. The author did this by providing examples of how to disqualify the
support for the theoretical perspective that machines, even though they have the appropriate
programming, still cannot understand as humans do. Through various explanations and replies to the
arguments, Searle makes his point and give examples of the promises. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This is a common acceptance in the field and Searle addresses the flaws in the argument. Searle
does a great job in incorporating previous research and using it to support his arguments. The
hypothesis is stated in the document and his opinions to each of the responses are clearly stated and
outlined in a generalized, simple, manner. The objective was to overall, provide arguments that
support that there is another mechanism towards understanding. In the author's first argument, he
states that if you give a native English individual a set of instructions to formulate an output, then he
will give you the information once he follows the instructions. This is similar to machines in the
way that they follow computations and as a result give an output. His argument in this case suggests
that although there is indeed an output, but the individual did not understand the instruction s, rather,
they simply memorized them. This is a strong point as in both instances there is a same result, but
the machine does not have any significance to the output, thus supporting the author's

Summary Of John Searle's Argument
John Searle first proposed the argument known as The Chinese Room Argument in a book he wrote
in 1984. The argument is well known if not famous and has become one of the best–know
arguments in recent philosophy. Searle imagines himself locked in a room following a computer
program for responding to questions written in Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle
does not understand Chinese writing, but he can follow the computer program to manipulate
symbols and numerals to easily respond to the questions without fully understanding even what he
was being asked or responding. The narrow conclusion of the argument is that following instructions
and programming a computer might make it seem to understand Chinese but doesn't have a real ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Due to the fact that Searle is inside the room and does not actually understand Chinese, he claims
the Chinese Room cannot be cognitively. Therefor, the Chinese Room would be functionally
equivalent but not cognitively equivalent to the native Chinese speakers and furthermore, if the
Chinese Room can imitate understanding without truly having it, then both Strong AI and
Functionalism would have to be invalid. Functionalism's imperative is to show that functional
equivalence must always equal cognitive equivalence, so if one could show functional equivalence
did not equal cognitive equivalence then Functionalism would be invalid. Additionally, if a
computer or some other system could imitate intelligence without retaining understanding, then
strong AI would be invalid as well. Strong AI is the view that if a machine can successfully imitate
human intelligence in a way that it becomes functionally and cognitively equivalent to a mind, then
the computer itself is a mind. Strong AI and its advocates respond to Searle's claims by applying the
Systems Reply. The Systems Reply states that despite the fact that Searle does not understand
Chinese in the Chinese Room, the system as a whole does in fact understand Chinese. Just because
Searle, or the

The Nature Of Knowledge, Reality, Existence, And Academic...
For centuries now, philosophers from countries all over the world have dedicated their lives to the
study of the nature of knowledge, reality, existence, and academic discipline. These studies have
taken them places within their field that question their own existence, the existence of everyone and
everything around them, and even what is right and wrong in the world they live in. However,
today's philosophy is somewhat different than it once was in the age of Aristotle, Plato, and
Descartes. One of the more current and controversial questions that has been pondered by
philosophers of the Twenty and Twenty–First Centuries is whether or not it is possible for artificial
intelligence, such as phones, laptops, or Smart TV's, to function like a human brain would. These
days, we have the capability of signaling somebody halfway across the world or finding out any
piece of information within seconds. Our treasured pieces of technology are kept near us at all times
and it is a comfortable feeling knowing that we have them around, even when there's no interaction
with them. We treat and care about our technology as if it were a friend. And despite the fact that
technology often seems to have the ability to communicate back to us, they do not actually think like
a human would. Although artificial intelligence is able to process information easily and quickly, it
can not in fact properly interpret, therefore it will never measure up to a human's capability of
processing. It is

Mind Brain By John Searle Summary
In his essay, Minds, Brains, and Computers, John Searle attempts to prove that Strong AI does not
exist. He still believes that there is some merit to weak AI, as a means for understanding how certain
elements of the brain function, but using computers as a way of not only mimicking the brain but
actually being a mind. The most concrete example that Searle used in support of his claim was that
computers cannot understand, and he demonstrated this through the Chinese Room experiment. In
the Chinese Room Experiment, a person can functionally answer questions in a language that they
do not understand, as long as they are given the tools to match certain words to words that they
understand in their native language. In this experiment the subject

Functionalism And Functionalism Of Functionalism
A Functionalism is the theory that what makes something a mental state depends on its function or
role in the cognitive system, instead of its internal constitution. To put it another way, functionalism
holds that mental states correspond to functional states. Functionalism is the offspring of both
identity theory and behaviorism, and comes in a few different flavors. For example, there is machine
functionalism, psycho–functionalism, analytic functionalism, role–functionalism and realizer–
functionalism. Furthermore, while some forms of functionalism identify mental states with
functional states, other forms associate mental states with the physical states that play those
particular functional roles. Developed in the 1960s, the three founders of functionalism include
Hilary Putnam (machine functionalist), David Armstrong (analytic functionalist), and David Lewis
(analytic functionalist). Further elaborating on functionalism, a functionalist theory could attribute
the mental state of "pain" to be caused by bodily injury, which, in turn, produces the "belief" that
something is wrong, which creates the "desire" to no longer be in pain, which also leads to wincing
and moaning. This is different from behaviorism, which would equate the mental state of pain with
the act of wincing and moaning. According to this, only those things with internal states that play
certain roles are capable of being in "pain". So, if we suppose that there is some distinctive type of
neural activity

John Searle's, Minds, And Computers By John Searle
In John Searle's essay titled "Minds, Brains, and Computers," he presents us with the "Chinese
Room" experiment where he describes a scenario of himself inside a locked up room. In this room
Searle is given a batch of Chinese writing or in other words the script, a second batch of Chinese
writing which is the story with a set of rules in English, and questions in Chinese with English rules.
Of course with Searle being a monolingual English speaker he has inability to comprehend the
Chinese language. Therefore, Searle uses the given English set of rule to correlates one set of formal
symbols with another that is he is classifying the symbols by their shape. With this technique he
manages to answer the Chinese questions in Chinese thus making

Computing Machinery And Intelligence By Alan Turing
In his paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Alan Turing sets out to answer the question
of whether machines can think in the same humans can by conceptualizing the question in concrete
terms. In simple terms, Turing redefines the question by posing whether a machine can replicate the
cognition of a human being. Yet, some may object to the notion that Turing's new question
effectively captures the nature of machines' capacity for thought or consciousness, such as John
Searle. In his Chinese room thought experiment, Searle outlines a scenario that implies machines'
apparent replication of human cognition does not yield conscious understanding. While Searle's
Chinese thought experiment demonstrates how a Turing test is not sufficient to establish that a
machine can possess consciousness or thought, this argument does not prove that machines are
absolutely incapable of consciousness or thought. Rather, given the ongoing uncertainty of the
debate regarding the intelligence of machines, there can be no means to confirm or disconfirm the
conscious experience of machines as well as the consciousness of humans by extension of that
principle. In attempting to answer the question of whether machines are able to think, Turing
redesigns the question around the notion of machines' effectiveness at mimicking human cognition.
Turing proposes to gauge such effectiveness by a variation of an 'imitation game,' where a man and
a woman are concealed from an interrogator who makes

John Searle Compare And Contrast
ASSIGNMENT 2: READING/DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Compare and contrast the views of
John Searle and Rene Descartes on dualism. John Searle and Rene Descartes views on dualism both
compare because they recognized mind and body as different parts, but they had different views.
John Searle's view were that physical and mental dualism may be two aspect that become a single
substance, He called this the supervenience theory. On the other hand, Rene Descartes beliefs are
that is composed of two different substances called substance dualism, stating that the physical, the
material essence was our body and mental, the immaterial essence; our mind which was where our
feelings and thoughts exist. He also claimed that the two substances interact at some point in the
body 2. Compare and contrast the views of George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes on the mind.
George Berkeley views on the mind is that the only things that are real are ideas, which this is
known as idealism. He also claimed that there is only one infinite mind and that all real objects are
nonphysical. However, Thomas Hobbes was quite the opposite as he believed that only thing to exist
is the body in motion. He stated that ideas, feelings, and thoughts are physical entities occurring that
is explained by motions in the brain. 3. Does the materialist position imply a determinist position on
the possibility of free will? Explain. The materialist position implies a determinist position on the
possibility of free will because to

John Searles Summary
Searles argues with his main concept of the Chinese Room, an experiment Prove his main claim that
Strong AI must be actually a real (human) brain to work. I will argue against this to show StrongAi
can be possible as long it starts to create rules and not responses. (Words – 49) Artificial Inelegance
topic has captivated the minds of researches and common people alike. The use of AI comes into
being as to try to understand our own brain and create a thinking machine. To begin the topic, one
must explain of john Searles arguments against what he calls StrongAI. Searles creates a distinction
between Strong Ai and Weak AI. While he has no issue with Weak Ai which is the idea of computers
that assist us in crunching numbers based on our inputs ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To go full circle on the first point we decided that machines must take into account the concept of
making rules and reflecting on past rules. The second point was to see how thinking and self–
awareness is achieved at the height of the process of rulemaking. The concept of language and
symbols Searles is very important as an example as it sheds light on why machines can't ever be
human even with human brains as Searles claim they need to be a theoretical StrongAI. Language
was created by mapping things and association of learned objects. To truly learn a language we have
to understand and experience what it stands for. Language is an expression of results based on tests
on objects that are now definable. It is a shortcut for learning information. Therefore it's important
that AI does more than think in a correct pattern as our experience of inputs comes from our
interactions with one another and what we learn from language and not on our own in solitude. The
man the Chinese Room cannot have those things and therefore cannot learn a language in the
method he is prescribed. This wraps in the thoughts of the second point as well to feel self–aware we
identify ourselves in relation to other people. This shows our society is also one big brain that is
made up of variety of rooms or people in this case all making decisions and rules for their

John Searle's Chinese Room Argument
John Searle's Chinese Room Argument John Searle is an American Philosopher, born July 31, 1932.
He is known for a widely spread argument in Philosophy called the "Chinese Room Argument". He
published his work onto paper in 1980. The argument follows that: "Searle imagines himself alone
in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the
door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating
symbols and numerals just as a computer does, he produces appropriate strings of Chinese
characters that fool those outside into thinking there is a Chinese speaker in the room." (Cole,
David) Searle (1984) organizes a three premise argument: " Programs are purely formal (syntactic).
Human minds have mental contents (semantics). Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of, nor
sufficient for, semantic content." (Cole, David) ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The main conclusion is that a computer may be able to produce a language but is not able to
comprehend the real understanding of that language. There have been many skeptics with different
points of view about this theory, as well as supporting the argument. Searle states, "The point of the
argument is this: if the man in the room does not understand Chinese on the basis of implementing
the appropriate program for understanding Chinese then neither does any other digital computer
solely on that basis because no computer, qua computer, has anything the man does not have."
(Cole,

Searle's Argument Against The Turing Test
Topic Briefly reconstruct John Searle's argument against the Turing Test as a measure of intelligence
and discuss whether or not you agree with Searle's conclusion that algorithmic machines lack
understanding. Why do you agree or disagree? Your paper should be 5 double spaced pages with no
more than 12–point type. Requirements: 2 citations max: Searle and Turing Backup every statement!
Say if I agree or not right off the bat, this isn't a joke, don't leave a hanging punchline First–person
Writing to Purpura, no context needed Intro should have paper roadmap Prop: I do not believe
algorithmic machines lack understanding any more than humans do. Searle's "Chinese Room"
argument depends on the idea of intentionality. He believes that intentionality is ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The principle of a strong AI is that an appropriately programmed computer is actually thinking, as
opposed to simulating thought. © Principle is equivalent(c?) to accepting the Turing Test as the
definition of thought. Which Searle would not be surprised to see that a machine still hasn't passed.
Searle's argument is straightforward. Searle's premise on the "Chinese Room" is that someone who
understands English sitting in a room with a set of rules that tells this person how to respond to
questions written in Chinese in such a way as to pass the Turing test. To Searle this person in the
room doesn't "understand" (e) Chinese. Understanding, being that real comprehension or thought
isn't existent. So to Searle, any machine that can be passed by systems, which behave in purely
formal ways (eP), can be explained in purely formal ways ©, just like the Chinese Room, so it is not
an adequate test. Main idea to Searle is that person answering Chinese questions is not engaged in
"intentional" behavior with theses questions, and is not "thinking about"(eP? Merely reacting to a
mix of emotions/past experience) the answers. Thus, the test is

Chinese Room Argument Analysis
In the Chinese Room Argument, John Searle undermines the Turing Test. He argues that two
systems can be given the same input and compute the same output, but not have the same
understanding. In a scenario, we have Edgar and Allen discussing this issue. Edgar asks Allen if it
were possible to create a system that by itself can be a sufficient condition of understanding. Allen
responds with the knowledge of the Chinese Room Argument. Allen argues that it would not be
possible because symbol manipulations themselves do not have understanding and therefore cannot
be a sufficient condition of understanding. I agree that Allen's answer is correct to an extent. I do not
believe that our current technology can create a system that could be a sufficient condition of
understanding. Although, I do not believe that symbol manipulations themselves do not have
understanding. In what follows, I will argue why I disagree with Allen's reasoning. I will also give
my account on why I believe, it is not possible to create such a system that can adequately
understand on its own.
From my understanding of the Chinese Room Argument, John Searle uses an example of individuals
and the Chinese language to undermine the Turing Test. The Turing Test states that two systems
have the same intermediary causal program, if their input ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
With syntactic properties alone, we cannot derive meaning, though this idea has a lot of holes in it.
One is that there is no definite difference between semantic and syntactic properties, for the same
reason I pointed out earlier. I believe that there can be overlap with these properties. A symbol,
which is a syntactic property can have meaning, which is a semantic property. Another is reason, is
that there is no proof that the brain only contains semantic properties. Paul Churchland and Patricia
Churchland also argued these points in Could a Machine

Artificial Intelligence Is The Dominant Theory
Artificial intelligence is intelligence exhibited by machines or software. Artificial intelligence also
studies how people create computers that are capable or preforming an intelligent behavior, like a
human (Business Dictionary). To back up artificial intelligence, there is functionalism. Hilary
Putman developed functionalism in the 1970's, which is still the dominant theory in todays' society.
Functionalism states that having a mind does not require a brain and mental states can be realized by
other kinds of substances. Mental states are also defined by their functions. In other words,
functionalism is where ones causes and effects define the views of their mental states. An example
can be defined as being in pain, which can cause ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Dualism is just a substance and it stated that the mind is made up of other things rather than just
atoms. Where materialism states the opposite. It showed that there were no such things as
immaterial substances, which meant there were no souls. Materialism was the simpler theory
because there was no mystery and it assumed the least. For that, Ockham's razor denied the
objection to the mind body dualism because it assumed too much. Along with that, materialism was
able to prove that without having a soul, computers can still be intelligent like a human.
Functionalism was an influence that made people believe in the possibility that machines can be
intelligent. It also identifies mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of and
there in that statement, the mind body dualism is denied by functionalism. Perhaps mental states are
more a matter of software, like running a program on your computer (Rosen et al., 355). It is denied
not only because there is not enough information to back it up, but because functionalism says that
beliefs, desires and emotions fit into the larger system since those types of mental states must be
realized by something else other than by what it already is.
Like anything else in philosophy, there are always objections to someone's theory. An objection or
the

Chinese Room Argument Analysis
Minds can be considered computing machines in that just as the hardware is used for the software,
the brain is used for the mind. Therefore, theoretically, there is a way to produce the mind using
different basal elements. Scientists have been working on a way to do just that and create robots
which are simply minds similar to ours, but which use programs and algorithms instead of messages
between neurons. If someone could create a program that would pass the Turing test, or in other
words, be indistinguishable from a human, it would prove functionalism is correct, and therefore
that Descartes is correct. However, there are contenders about even whether or not it would be
possible for that kind of program to be made. A famous example would be John Searle's Chinese
Room ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He was basically differentiating between the ideas of syntax and semantics. While the person may
know the syntax, or formal rules, of the language, they do not necessarily know the semantics, or
meanings expressed by the language. Therefore, a program would need to understand both syntax
and semantics to truly pass the Turing test and definitively have the same kind of mind as we do. In
order to more fully understand these principles, we can apply them to a more in depth scenario. The
show Black Mirror created and produced by Charlie Brooker is made up of episodes set in different
realities, all set in "the way we might be living in 10 minutes' time if we're clumsy;" the near future
with slightly more advanced technology ("Charlie Brooker"). They follow plot lines that serve as
warnings about being cautious with these advancements and the destruction they might cause. One
of these episodes, "Be Right Back," focuses on a time where a program exists that mimics a person
based on their social media, personal files, and even videos. Martha and Ash are

Synopsis Of ' Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind '
The focus of my essay is going to be mainly on characterisation: how this two characters are
constructed and how they interact with each other in this fragment, and on speech acts: what types
of speech acts are performed in this fragment and what's the intention behind them. This fragment
was taken from the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It tells the story of Joel Barish and
Clementine Kruczynski, two completely different persons who have been former lovers in the past
two years but can't recall it because both of them have had that memory erased from their minds.
The film opens up with Joel, a very emotional and timid man who whilst being on the train station
about to get a train to work, feels the urge to go to Montauk ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
That explains why when they met at the beginning of the film, it was the first time they met each
other after erasing each others memories. The fragment I have chosen takes place when Joel is
getting the procedure done for the first time, and the first memory they erase happens to be the last
memory they shared together, which funnily enough is nothing but an argument. After that, their
relationship was over. In this scene Joel is waiting for Clementine, who has gone out without him
and is coming home late and drunk. Joel is mad at her because of that but also, since this is the end
of their relationship, they are are more susceptible to what each of them does, which contributes and
can be clearly seen in this argument. They start arguing about Joel's car, which Clementine has
broke down because she was driving whilst being under the effects of alcohol. He is clearly not
happy about that and he starts blaming her for possibly having cause some more damage apart from
the car. They start to get more angry at each other, specially from the moment Joel calls Clementine
a "wino" and since Clementine is clearly offended by that she points out to Joel that the only reason
he is mad at her is because he is contemplating the possibility of her having had sexual relationships
with another person that is not him, which is something he wouldn't like to happen. But Joel
response to that is that he assumes she has done that, since that

Searles Case Study

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Ashley Fisher

More from Ashley Fisher (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Searles Case Study