Re:The Chinese Room Argument
by joe_the_user on Sunday February 03, 2019 @05:31PM
(#19072664)
Yeah, the thing about the argument is it mixes together two close but distinct arguments in a way that makes it harder to argue with either.
On the one hand, there's the implication that because it's just books and boxes & whatever, it can't do the impressive feat of speaking Chinese.
On the other hand, there's the implication that if it is a "room" or "computer" or something doing the speaking of Chinese, it can't "really" be doing it because it doesn't have the spark of life or a soul or whatever magic one might name.
And because the argument has a bit of both these claims to it, it is hard to address since a proponent can go back and forth between them.
That this argument was taken seriously by philosophers was rather disheartening to me when I discovered this, when it became obvious there really wasn't any more there than a colorful (but not particular relevant) metaphor.
On the one hand, there's the implication that because it's just books and boxes & whatever, it can't do the impressive feat of speaking Chinese.
On the other hand, there's the implication that if it is a "room" or "computer" or something doing the speaking of Chinese, it can't "really" be doing it because it doesn't have the spark of life or a soul or whatever magic one might name.
And because the argument has a bit of both these claims to it, it is hard to address since a proponent can go back and forth between them.
That this argument was taken seriously by philosophers was rather disheartening to me when I discovered this, when it became obvious there really wasn't any more there than a colorful (but not particular relevant) metaphor.