Searle Flashcards
Which philosopher specialized in philosophy of language: speech, acts, intentionality
John Searle
Which theory does John Searle mostly critic?
Computationalism
Which article did John Searle write?
Minds, Brains, and Programs
Where did computationalism come from?
Functionalism
What is Computationalism
that the mind functions as a digital computer (symbol manipulator)
How does the Computationalsit view mind=___
mind= information processor
are digital computer and Turing machine synonymous?
yes
What is the a Turing machine?
a specification of a set of sequences of machines
Describe a specification of a set of sequences of machines in lay terms
uses a set of rules to determine a result from a set of inputs
What is an example of sequencing for the computationalist to explain it in human format?
if you are in state A you then go into state B and then from state B into state W (Sequencing)
True or false anything that falls into sequences can be described as a computer program (to the computationalist)
correct
How does the mind work regarding thinking as computation?
Neuron firings can be
described in terms of
programs running on Turing machines
Give an example of inputs and outputs with thinking as computation?
input
manipulation of symbols
output
according to the computationalist what the mind is to brain as a_____
computer program (mind) is to a digital computer (brain)
What was the Turing test?
A test to support computationalism. Observer- guy behind computer and computer
What is Weak AI?
view that computers provide powerful tools in helping us model or explain cognitive mistakes
What is strong AI?
view that appropriately programmed computers can be said to understand or think.
These programs explain human cognition
How does the burger story explain how humans understand stories?
that humans understand things that are not explicitly mentioned.
Man goes into restaurant burger burnt, leaves restaurant without paying bill. (Most people would say he didn’t eat the burger)
or
Man orders burger in restaurant and very pleased with burger and leaves restaurant leaving a big tip (did he eat the burger) yes most people would say
How does the burger story support Strong AI
Some machines can answer in the same way that humans would
what are the two points that according to supporters of strong AI are present for I the burger story
- the machines understand the story
- to the extent that the machines does understand the story explains the human ability to understand the story
From the burger story what does strong AI assume
the Turing test
Does Searle reject computationalism
yes
Explain the chinese room argument
bunch of chinese symbols inputed into box. man in box only has rulebook that says send write this and send it out if this symbol comes in then outputs the notes…. still doesn’t know chinese
What does the chinese argument represent
a computer program and the manipulation of formal symbols
“I have inputs and outputs that are indistinguishable from those of the native Chinese speaker, and I can have any formal program you like, but I still __. For that reason Schank’s program understands ___.”
“We can see that the computer and its program ___ understanding since the computer and the program are functioning, and there is ____.”
- understand nothing
- nothing of stories
- do not provide sufficient conditions for
- no understanding
according to Searle can a machine think?
yes
Using the chinese room argument, in other words, the Turing test is?
not a sufficient test for intelligence
according to Searle a human made machine does not think?
false
could non human made machine thinks?
in principle yes, as long as whatever machine we could make could duplicate whatever causal powers that are necessary to produce consciousness
can digital computers think?
yes (humans are technically digital computers
How are digital computers defined?
syntactically
according to searle could something under or think in virtue only of being a digital with the right sort of computer?
no, this is where computationalism goes wrong because they think thats all we are is digital computers however humans go beyond that
What is the alternate argument (searle)
- programs are formal (syntactical)
- minds have content (semantic content)
- syntax is not identical nor sufficient by itself for semantics
Therefore: programs are not sufficient nor identical to minds (strong AI false)
Why do some people suppose that running a computer program is constitutive of mental processes?
Cognitive Science Assumption – Cognitive science assumes that the mind works like a computer, processing information in a similar way that a computer runs a program.
Searle’s Critique – Searle argues that when humans process information (e.g., math, reflection, deliberation), they do so with meaning (semantics). In contrast, computers don’t actually “process” information in this sense.
The Key Difference – Computers only manipulate formal symbols (syntax) without any understanding or meaning (semantics). They follow rules but don’t actually “know” or “understand” anything.
What are the two kinds of intentionality
- intrinsic
- Derived
Explain intrinsic intentionality?
mental states have meaningful content and intrinsic to being that mental state (thirst)
explain derived intentionality?
only in virtue of it being given by something outside of the system (5 dollar bill has the status and content only in virtue of assigning it that value)
What is intentionality in Phil of Mind
something is intentional when it is about something else (aboutness)
What does 2+2=4 mean to the computationalist and searle
Computation Misconception – A calculator doesn’t truly “process information”; it just manipulates symbols.
Searle’s Argument – “2” and “4” have meaning to us, but to a computer, they are just symbols with no understanding.
Meaning Comes from Us – Computers don’t grasp semantics; humans assign meaning to the symbols they process.
“The programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, that is, ________________. The computer understanding is not just partial or incomplete; ____________.” -Searle
- exactly nothing
- it is zero
True or false Searle actually thinks behaviourism is a bad view
true
How does Searle view behaviourism
behaviorism, despite being flawed, still influences cognitive science. We are tempted to attribute mental states to computers because they have inputs and outputs like humans. However, the Chinese Room Argument shows that behaving like a human is not enough to prove understanding or real mental states
are computationalism has zero similarities with dualism
Despite rejecting traditional dualism, computationalists treat the mind like a program, separate from the physical brain. Strong AI argues that if this view is true, the mind must be conceptually and empirically independent of the brain, making it a form of dualism.
What is the systems reply for the defence of computationalism
While the individual in the Chinese Room doesn’t understand Chinese, the entire system—including inputs, outputs, and processes—does. Critics argue that Searle wrongly focuses on the individual rather than the whole system, which is functionally indistinguishable from a native Chinese speaker.
What is Searle response to the System Reply
Absurdity of Parts Understanding – If the individual doesn’t understand, how do the parts together suddenly create understanding? That seems implausible.
Internalization Thought Experiment – Even if the individual memorized the entire system (rules, inputs, outputs), he still wouldn’t understand Chinese, proving that the system as a whole doesn’t truly understand either.
What is the Robot Reply?
Robot Reply – Instead of just running a program in isolation, embed it in a robot with a human-like body. This robot can interact with the world, respond to questions, and behave appropriately (e.g., if it “feels” hunger, it goes to a restaurant). The idea is that grounding the program in real-world interactions gives it genuine understanding.
What is Searles response to the Robot Reply?
Response to the Robot Reply:
Cognition is More Than Symbol Manipulation – Simply adding a robotic body doesn’t solve the core issue. Understanding requires more than just formal symbol processing.
Interaction Doesn’t Create Understanding – Even with perception and real-world responses, the system is still just following rules without true comprehension.
Thought Experiment – If a human were placed inside the robot, receiving and processing Chinese symbols while the robot’s body reacts appropriately, the human still wouldn’t understand Chinese—proving that the system as a whole doesn’t truly understand either.
Brain Simulator Reply to Searle
Instead of just manipulating symbols, design a program that simulates the exact neural processes of a native Chinese speaker. The machine would take in Chinese stories and questions, process them by mimicking the formal neural patterns of understanding, and then produce appropriate Chinese answers. The idea is that by closely simulating the brain, the machine would achieve real understanding.
What was Searles 1st Reply to the Brain Simulator
- strong AI should not care about how the brain works
-mental processes are supposed to consist of computation process that can be captured over formal elements
-functionalism is supposed to overcome the identity theory
What was Searles 2nd Reply to the Brain Simulator
Complex System, No Understanding – The man manipulates an intricate system of valves and pipes (analogous to a Chinese Room) where water flow represents neural connections, yet he still doesn’t understand Chinese despite producing correct outputs.
Missing Causal Properties – Even if the system functions like a brain, it lacks the causal mechanisms that create genuine understanding and intentional states
What is the combination reply?
a combination of critics of Searle by adding in all of the critics together
What is seamless response to the combination reply
Attributing Intelligence Too Easily – We are inclined to call something “intelligent” if it behaves intelligently, even if it lacks true understanding.
Understanding the Mechanism Changes Perception – If we fully understood why the system behaves as it does, we might no longer be convinced it possesses real intelligence
What is the many mansions reply
The “Many Mansions” reply is an objection to John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument, which argues against the possibility of strong AI (machines truly understanding language). The reply suggests that even if the specific system in Searle’s thought experiment lacks understanding, there could be other AI architectures—more sophisticated ones—that do achieve genuine understanding.
Searles response to many mansions?
Searle’s Response – Searle argues that no matter how complex the system becomes, if it still only follows formal rules (symbol manipulation), it will never achieve true intentionality or comprehension—just more sophisticated simulation.
What is Searles Final kick against strong AI
Absurd Consequences of Strong AI – If the mind is just an information processor, then any system with inputs, outputs, and processing (like a stomach or thermostat) could be said to “think,” which seems absurd.
Searle’s Critique – Defining the mind purely as symbol manipulation leads to over-attribution of mental states, making even thermostats capable of “beliefs,” which Searle sees as a clearly flawed view of cognition.
“The study of the mind starts with such facts as that humans have beliefs, ________________________. If you get a theory that ______________you have produced a counterexample to the theory and the theory is false…What we want to know is what distinguishes the _______________…Strong AI wouldn’t have a hope of telling us that.”- Searle
1) while thermostats, telephones and adding machines dont
2) you have produced a counterexample to the theory and the theory is false…What we want to know is what distinguishes the ____________mind from thermostats and livers_____________…Strong AI wouldn’t have a hope of telling us that.”
What are the Conclusions to computationalism
Computation Alone Is Meaningless – Computers and calculators process symbols without understanding; meaning only comes from external observers, not from the system itself.
Machines Can Think, But Not Just Any Machine – Not all information processors are minds; if everything can be described as a digital computer (even a rock), then the concept of computation becomes trivial and fails to explain real understanding.
Why not dualism is the philosophy of mind (think Searle)
Dualism’s Problems Persist – The fundamental issues with dualism haven’t been resolved, and its core challenges remain unchanged.
Lack of Progress Suggests a Dead End – Since dualism hasn’t advanced significantly over time, it appears to be an unproductive theory rather than a viable explanation of the mind.
What are the two identity theories?
Type Identity Theory – Every type of mental state corresponds exactly to a specific type of brain state (e.g., pain = C-fiber activation).
Token Identity Theory – Each individual mental state corresponds to some brain state, but the same mental state (e.g., pain) might be realized differently in different brains.
🔹 Key Point – In both views, sensations aren’t caused by brain states; they are brain states.
Got to slide 56, 58
What is the Horns of the Dilemma?
Either the reduction includes those the feature of quail or it does not
1) If it does include quail than we have yet to be rid of the mind in our reduction
2) if we dont include in than the theory is false and its not materialism since we leave something out
What is Paul Feyerabend’s take on the Dilemma?
“Even if he is a convinced monist he seems to be forced, by the very content of his thesis of monism, to acknowledge __ __.”
the correctness of a dualistic point of view
Describes in lay terms the horns in the dilemma
1) still left with strange mental phenomena
2) left out some mental phenomena
What does Richard Rorty say about the horn dilemma
philosophers should not be afraid to be impaled by the second horn
what is a limited materialist
Limited Materialists are those who accept that the mind is grounded in physical processes but argue that not all mental phenomena can be fully explained in purely materialist terms. They acknowledge that:
Material Basis – The mind depends on the brain and physical processes, but…
Limits of Reduction – Some mental states (e.g., qualia, consciousness) might not be fully reducible to physical explanations.
🔹 Key Idea – Unlike strict materialists, they allow for gaps or limitations in how physical processes account for subjective experience.
what is folk psychology
is a set of assumptions and convictions that the common people use to explain everyday thoughts and actions
what is a broken concept with quail
The Problem Might Be Qualia Itself – If every theory of mind fails to properly account for qualia, maybe the issue isn’t with the theories but with the concept of qualia itself.
Qualia is Incoherent – Since no theory can logically incorporate qualia without contradictions or “danglers” (unexplained leftovers), it suggests qualia might not be a meaningful or valid concept.
What is at the heart of the mind body problem?
qualia
what replaces qualia
brain states and neural events
what are eliminiativists?
Eliminativists are philosophers who argue that certain common-sense mental concepts—like beliefs, desires, and qualia—should be eliminated because they are fundamentally flawed and will be replaced by neuroscience.
What was smart response to critics after eliminvists was introduced?
“I am even doubtful now whether it is necessary to give ______________. Paul Feyerabend may be right in his contention that common sense is inevitably ____________, and that common sense introspective reports are couched in a framework _____________________. . . .”
a physicalisist analyst of sensation reports
dualistic
of a dualistic conceptual scheme
