Searle's Chinese Room and its Aftermath

Vincent John Mooney III

Abstract

This paper attempts a systematic survey of some of the issues raised by Searle and his critics, while including new arguments on the application of the Chinese Room Argument to causal reductionism and showing implausible results of criticisms of Searle, such as consciousness blinking in and out at rapid speed. Also included is Terry Winograd's unpublished reply to Searle's original argument in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

Two main points recur often in the debate. On the one hand, Searle and his supporters argue that the conclusion that beer cans and strings have intentionality, just by virtue of being appropriately connected, is absurd. On the other hand, critics argue, ``What else could be the case?''

Clearly, the goal of some Artificial Intelligence researchers is to fully copy human intelligence and wisdom in a computer program or set of computer programs. The feasibility of such a goal is put into deep question as John Searle's argument unfolds in the literature, especially as regards the lack of demonstrated ability of syntactic manipulations to lead to semantics. The current state of the debate seems to center on this issue -- can syntax cause semantics -- and the status of Searle's claimed absurd beer cans and strings conclusion.

Publications Home PageHome Page CSLI Home Page Stanford Home Page
pubs@roslin.stanford.edu
Date last updated: January 30, 1996