Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!jhunix!ins_cscs
From: ins_cscs@jhunix (Surag Surendrakumar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Fallacy in Chinese Room experiment.
Message-ID: <1059@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 8 Mar 89 22:12:07 GMT
Sender: ins_cscs@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU
Reply-To: ins_cscs@jhunix (Surag Surendrakumar)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Lines: 56

Hello everybody. I find the Chinese Room discussion very interesting. So I 
wanted to add a few of my opinions and comments. All comments to this
posting is appreciated.

According to Searle there is a difference between thinking and understanding.
Understanding has this additional biological aspect which causes the actual
understanding. This may be true or may be false, no one knows for certain.
Even though a lot of people including myself do not believe Searle. Searle puts
forth the Chinese room argument to support his theory. The Chinese Room 
argument is baseless and does not really prove anything. The following is
my criticism of the Chinese room argument.

Searle says that by learning just the rules for Chinese he will be able 
to pass the Turning Test but he does not really  know Chinese. He also 
claims that he can learn all the rules and get good enough to convince
a native speaker that he really does understand Chinese but he really, does
not understand it. I think that it is going to be impossible for Searle
to learn all those rules and still not understand Chinese.

Take for example a class where we are thought elementary Chinese. You are
thought Chinese by learning the syntax and symbols. This is very much the 
same way that Searle learns Chinese. But you understand Chinese but Searle
does not ? So it is not going to be possible for Searle to learn all the
rules and not understand any Chinese. Searle also understands the rules 
which is essential for him to manipulate them, he is able to reply to
questions in Chinese as good as a native speaker and knows all the rules.
He claims that still he does not understand any Chinese. If any person can
do this then **he has to understand** Chinese. 

Saying that there is some biological demon within you which does the
understanding, and not having any idea what it is not a scientific argument.
Neither Searle nor any other person has been able to come up with any
valid explanation to what the biological demon is. Saying that there exists
this demon ( which is highly doubtful in first place ) and having no idea
how it works or what is actually is made of is not scientific or logical.
It is like saying the answer to all problems is X, where X represents the
answer to the problem and refuting a logical explanation and answer to
the problem. At the same time you don't accept any other answers but just X.


So you can clearly see that the argument made by Searle is not correct. His 
assumptions are wrong and his experiment is baseless. He also does not have
any valid explanation to support his results either. Searle starts wrong
and ends wrong. His experiment is not scientific.

ALL COMMENTS TO THIS POSTING APPRECIATED.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

		|| SURAJ C. SURENDRAKUMAR. ||

The John's Hopkins University.
BITNET: ins_cscs@jhunix.bitnet	ins_cscs@jhuvms.bitnet
Other networks I have not yet figured out.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/