Share this comment
It's not behaviorism just because the word "behavior" appears in it. Behaviorism, at least as Skinner had it, was just a reaction to the time and was silly, IMHO. As far as the Chinese Room Argument, a lot has been said already about that. It's just wrong. It has so many goofy elements that it fails completely as a thought experiment. Se…
It's not behaviorism just because the word "behavior" appears in it. Behaviorism, at least as Skinner had it, was just a reaction to the time and was silly, IMHO. As far as the Chinese Room Argument, a lot has been said already about that. It's just wrong. It has so many goofy elements that it fails completely as a thought experiment. Searle either didn't understand computers or was willing to sacrifice his professional reputation for the sake of claiming humans to be intrinsically superior to AI. That's not a position I have any respect for.
Since you are not really coming to grips with what I said in my comment, lets end it here. I have no interest in having a Chinese Room Argument.
Uh, that's not a counterargument. "Searle is wrong and what he said was goofy" isn't a counterargument. Do you even know how to make a point? You're arguing by assertion- Try actually addressing Searle's argument, starting with how the Chinese Room doesn't actually understand Chinese. If you disagree, try explaining how the room actually does.
The baseline referent of autonomous individual human intelligence is Corporeality.
if a machine has no Corporeality, then what kind of autonomous referent to Reality does it have?