• FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “The room understands” is a common counterargument, and it was addressed by Searle by proposing that a person memorize the contents of the book.

    And the room passes the Turing test, that does not mean that “it passes all the tests we can throw at it”. Here is one test that it would fail: it contains various components that respond to the word “red”, but it does not contain any components that exclusively respond to any use of the word “red”. This level of abstraction is part of what we mean by understanding. Internal representation matters.

    • lloram239@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      it was addressed by Searle by proposing that a person memorize the contents of the book.

      It wasn’t addressed, he just added a layer of nonsense on top of a nonworking though experiment. A human remembering and executing rules is no different from reading those rules in a book. It doesn’t mean a human understands them, just because he remembers them. The human intuitive understanding works at a completely different level than the manual execution of mechanical rules.

      it contains various components that respond to the word “red”, but it does not contain any components that exclusively respond to any use of the word “red”.

      Not getting it.