Design inside the Chinese Room

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas Terzidis
Keyword(s):  
2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael John Shaffer
Keyword(s):  

Scholarpedia ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 3100 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Searle

Author(s):  
Анатолий Анатольевич Парпара

В статье излагаются взгляды известных философов Дж. Сёрла и Д. Деннета на природу сознания и полемика между ними. Оба автора являются материалистами, однако принадлежат к различным течениям: редукционизму (Деннет) и антиредукционизму (Сёрл): первое утверждает, что явления сознания без остатка сводятся к физической реальности, второе - что они обладают онтологической несводимостью. Рассматриваются мировоззренческие основания обоих мыслителей, в том числе отношение к религии, и кратко разбираются основные теоретические конструкции, которые они используют: эмерджентизм, «китайская комната», виды редукции и субъективности по Сёрлу, «пандемониум», мемы, верификационизм и гетерофеноменология по Деннету. Показано, что споры между редукционистами и антиредукционистами свидетельствуют о наличии существенных противоречий в современном материализме, которые могут быть использованы христианской апологетикой как для критических целей, так и в качестве отправной точки для построения диалога. The article discusses the views of J. R. Searle and D. C. Dennett on the nature of consciousness and their polemic. Both philosophers are materialists but take different positions on the problem of consciousness: Dennett claims that mental phenomena can be completely reduced to physical (reductionism), while Searl maintains ontological irreducibility of the former (antireductionism). The author states their world views, including attitudes towards religion, and briefly discusses the main theoretic constructs they use: emergentism, the Chinese room, types of reduction and subjectivity according to Searle, pandemonium, memes, verificationism and heterophenomenology according to Dennett. It is shown that discussions between reductionists and antireductionists reveal substantial contradictions in contemporary materialism, which may by used by Christian apologetics not only for critics, but as a starting point for a dialog as well.


Author(s):  
Joshua Rust

John Rogers Searle (born July 31, 1932) is the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. This analytic philosopher has made major contributions to the fields of the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of language, and social ontology. He is best known for his Chinese room argument, which aims to demonstrate that the formally described systems of computer functionalism cannot give rise to intentional understanding. Searle’s early work focused on the philosophy of language, where, in Speech Acts (1969), he explores the hypothesis that speaking a language is a rule-governed form of behavior. Just as one must follow certain rules in order to be considered to be playing chess, rules determine whether a speaker is making a promise, giving a command, asking a question, making a statement, and so forth. The kind of speech act that an utterance is depends on, among other conditions, its propositional content and illocutionary force. The content depicts the world as being a certain way, and the force specifies what a speaker is trying to do with that content. For example, for an utterance to qualify as a promise a speaker must describe a future act (content) and intend that the utterance place him or herself under an obligation to do that act (force). In Intentionality (1983), Searle argues that the structure of language not only mirrors but is derivative of the structure of intentional thought, so that core elements of his analysis of speech acts can be used as the basis for a theory of intentionality. Just as we can only promise by bringing certain propositional contents under a certain illocutionary force, intentional states such as belief, desire, fear, and joy can only be about the world in virtue of a representative content and a psychological mode. A theory of intentionality does not explain how intentionality is possible, given the basic facts of the world as identified by the natural sciences. Much of Searle’s work in the philosophy of mind, as found in Minds, Brains, and Science (1984) and The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992), is dedicated to the question of how mental facts, including but not limited to intentional facts, can be reconciled with basic, natural facts. Searle’s Chinese room argument is formulated in the service of rejecting computer functionalism, a prominent attempt at such reconciliation. Searle’s positive view, which he describes as "biological naturalism," is that mental facts are both caused by and features of underlying neurophysiological processes. In Speech Acts (1969), Searle claims that using language is akin to playing chess, in that both activities are made possible by participants following what he describes as "constitutive rules," rules that must be followed in order for someone to be considered to be undertaking those activities. Other institutional facts, such as money or the U.S. presidency, are also created and maintained in virtue of our following certain constitutive rules. For example, someone can only count as a U.S. president if that person is, among other conditions, a U.S. citizen who receives a majority of electoral votes. This thought is extended and explored in Searle’s two book-length contributions to the field of social ontology, The Construction of Social Reality (1995) and Making the Social World (2010). In addition to the philosophy of language and social ontology, Searle has made book-length contributions to the philosophy of action (Rationality in Action (2001)) and the philosophy of perception (Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception (2015)). He also famously engaged Jacques Derrida’s critique of J. L. Austin’s discussion of illocutionary acts ("Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida" (1977)). Searle has summarized his various positions in Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World (1998) and Mind: A Brief Introduction (2004).


2019 ◽  
pp. 254-263
Author(s):  
Alan J. McComas

This chapter considers the question of whether or not nonliving systems can acquire consciousness. It explores contemporary advances in technology, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence. The chapter also considers whether or not consciousness can be performed if inorganic matter replaced the components with which organisms experience consciousness. These and similar questions on nonhuman intelligence and consciousness are fleshed out with scenarios and thought experiments proposed throughout the 20th century, such as John Searle’s Chinese room argument and the archangel paradigm proposed by C. D. Broad. The chapter concludes with reflections on the human being’s inability to truly experience consciousness in the same way as nonhumans.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document