Why Does Searle Think that the Chinese Room thought Experiment Shows that the Turing Test Is Invalid?
A commonly raised question brought up when analyzing the methodology behind the "The Turing Test", is can a computer's "thinking" exist with both syntax and semantics? And are both these required to "think"? John Searle's "Chinese Room Experiment" sets out to prove that although a merely syntactic computer may be able to pass "The Turing Test" it's understanding of the issues being posed to it are non-existent. In this essay I shall argue how Searle quite effectively illustrates his argument, as well as raising the objections to his argument. …
- Not Everything that Is Learned Is Contained in Books
- Wealth does not bring happiness. True or false?
- Why Does Searle Think that the Chinese Room thought Experiment Shows that the Turing Test Is Invalid?
E-pasta adrese, uz kuru nosūtīt darba saiti:
Saite uz darbu: