Comment by netdevphoenix
7 hours ago
> if it can produce the exact same output as some Chinese speaker, then I don't see by what non-spiritualistic criteria anyone could argue that it is fundamentally different from a Chinese speaker.
Indeed. The crux of the debate is:
a) how many input and response pairs are needed to agree that the rule-provider plus the Chinese room operation is fundamentally equal/different to a Chinese speakers
b) what topics can we agree to exclude so that if point a can be passed with the given set of topics we can agree that 'the rule-provider plus the Chinese room operation' is fundamentally equal/different to a Chinese speaker
As far as I can see, Searle rejects the whole concept, and claims that by construction, it is obvious that the Chinese room doesn't understand Chinese in the same way that a speaker does, regardless of how well it can mimic Chinese speech.
> claims that by construction, it is obvious that
Sounds like circular logic to me unless you make that assumption explicit
Yes, that's what I'm "accusing" him of. I'm sure his defenders view his argument differently.