Wolfgang Schwarz wrote:
> I wouldn't call this obvious. Our ordinary concept of "understanding
> Chinese" is far from being applicable to rooms. And I would find it
> very odd indeed to say that the room understood the problems which I
> gave it as input.
It's very odd to say that clumps of neurons understand problems
given to them, either, but going on what is or is not very odd
is no grounds for understanding the world, regardless of what
Searle and his Oxford School have to say on the matter.
> The whole issue seems to depend on what is meant with "understanding".
> In a functional sense the Chinese room does understand. In the sense
> in which the term is commonly used, it doesn't, because understanding
> a question in this sense requires concious thinking about it, i.e.
> grasp of its semantical content.
And what grounds, other than prejudice, do you have for saying that
the room does not "consciously think", or "grasp semantic content"?
--
<J Q B>
