Question about Searle?

Question

Explain why according to Searle, humans cannot be described as a physical entities where a computer program has been implemented with the right inputs and inputs.

Answer 1

Well, I don't know that Searle ever makes the claim the humans are not physical entities. I think that they are is self-evident. What Searle does dispute within cognitive science is the claim of Strong AI, that mind is a machine (by machine here I mean Turing machine), or in other words, that mind is computable. Searle does not dispute Weak AI; namely that there are some parts of mind that are computable, no one really disputes this as we have the technology to prove them wrong. In particular Searle argues that a machine cannot understand, even if it behaves as if it does. His famous 'Chinese Room' argument attempts to convince us of this by way of analogy. It doesn't convince me, especially since Searle never explicitly describes precisely what understanding actually is. His use of 'folk-psychological' terms makes his argument quite vague, which renders his argument deficient. The fact is, if Searle could describe what understanding actually is, and list its procedures, then, that would be computable.

Answer 2

Houston's answer is really more than adequate, but I think it's worth explaining Searle's Chinese Room argument with more detail.

As Houston already pointed out, the Chinese Room argument does not doubt the existence of weak AI, but in terms of strong AI, Searle claims that it is not possible with current computational model of mind.

The problem of the computational model of mind based on Turing machine is that no matter how fast these computers become, usage of syntax will give rise to semantics.

So computational theory of mind won't allow content of thought in computers.

Answer 3

you've probably heard of his "chinese chamber" arguement right?

btw, i think your question might be incomplete.