Matter & Memory

[Brad De Long]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Martens
>
>>>I really like Searle.  What do you make of his "Chinese Room" argument?
>>
>>I think that human cognition is a physical process, and if so, it must be
>>expressable as an algorithm of some sort.  (Penrose's arguments against
>>that are highly doubtful.)  If human cognition is an algorithm, I am forced
>>to concede that Searle's Chinese Room can execute the algorithm.
>>
>>So, I don't see a problem or a paradox.
>>
>You're not confronting the question.  You're evading it.  This seems to be
>your central strategy in this entire post.  What Searle demonstrates is that
>a person can fulfill the functions of a computer without comprehending
>*anything.*  That means we have no basis for believing that computers
>"think," i.e. engage in cognition.  Now, do you have any response to this
>argument?  Do you agree, disagree?

Searle's argument proves that a collection of electro-chemically 
activated cells can fulfill the functions of a mind without anything 
within the collection comprehending *anything.* That means we have no 
basis for believing that brains "think," i.e. engage in cognition. 
Now, do you have any response to this argument? Or, rather, does the 
collection of cells in your head that simulates cognition produce an 
output?

Brad DeLong