>This is the first good refutation of the Chinese room I've encountered.
Really? I'd think that the fact that someone saying 'lookup tables aren't thinking' without ever saying what thinking is would be presenting an obviously self-refuting argument.
Like a judge saying "I know crime when I see it: I don't have to write down what it is." It's simply not a basis for rational decision making, so it's certainly not a convincing assertion.
The fact that anybody thinks the Chinese room is an interesting philosophical quandary is far more interesting. It means these are primitive times and you don't actually need to be very smart to beat the competition.
>The fact that anybody thinks the Chinese room is an interesting philosophical quandary is far more interesting. It means these are primitive times and you don't actually need to be very smart to beat the competition.
There are genuinely competent people doing competent work in the field of philosophy. They just don't make up enough of the peer-review boards to throw out everyone who isn't as competent as them.
The continuing influence of mathematical logic and its attendant "general axiom to specific theorem, As Above So Below" style of thinking does not help.
Really? I'd think that the fact that someone saying 'lookup tables aren't thinking' without ever saying what thinking is would be presenting an obviously self-refuting argument.
Like a judge saying "I know crime when I see it: I don't have to write down what it is." It's simply not a basis for rational decision making, so it's certainly not a convincing assertion.
The fact that anybody thinks the Chinese room is an interesting philosophical quandary is far more interesting. It means these are primitive times and you don't actually need to be very smart to beat the competition.