Searle & Consciousness

Does John Searle prove computers can’t be conscious?

This topic focusses on arguments for and against John Searle's claim that computers can't be conscious.

Your mission is to think about whether of not John Searle actually gives a logically compelling reason why computers can't ever be conscious, or whether or not he simply assumes it. 

Here's three links to Searle's argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

1. Explain Searle's position as you understand it. Lay out all his claims and examples in his own words.  In particular, explain the "Chinese Room" and how it's supposed to debunk computer consciousness.

2. Examine Searle's writings and see if you can find any argument in support of Searle's claim that computers cannot have a conscious experience. Such an argument would consist of explaining how conscious experiences are made, explaining what kinds of machinery or processes are necessary for this process and why this machinery or process is necessary, and finally giving a solid reason why computers can never, ever reproduce or accomplish this machinery or process. 

3. Examine Searle's writings and see if you can find any reply to the basic argument for computer consciousness. (If you have been ignoring the basic argument for computer consciousness, you haven't really been doing the assignment.) The basic argument for computer consciousness is, of course, available at ot_computerconscious.htm.

4. If Searle does have any argument in support of his claim that computers cannot have a conscious experience, explain that argument in your own words. 

5. If Searle does have a reply to the basic argument for computer consciousness, explain that reply in your own words. (Please note that mentioning and then ignoring this argument does not count as replying to it.)

6. If you personally have a reply to the basic argument for computer consciousness, explain that reply clearly and completely . (Please note that mentioning and then ignoring this argument does not count as replying to it.)

7. If Searle does not have any argument in support of his claim that computers cannot have a conscious experience, write a paragraph explaining this and pointing out that Searle has completely failed to prove that computers cannot ever be conscious.

8. If neither Searle nor yourself have a reply to the basic argument for computer consciousness, write a paragraph explaining this and pointing out that, as far as you can tell right now, computers could potentially one day be made capable of consciousness.

Basically, if Searle is wrong, write a paper explaining what he says, and explaining in detail why it is wrong. If Searle is right, write a paper explaining the basic argument for computer consciousness, and explaining how he shows a particular logical flaw in the premises or logic of this argument.

It is vitally important that your paper include an account of how Serarle's argument is supposed to work. Why is the Chinese Room supposed to represent all possible computers? What logical rule is appealed to here? 

It is also vitally important that you critique Searle's argument. Does he prove that computers can only ever work the way the chinese room does? How does his argument compare to "proving" that heavier-than-air flight is impossible by describing a heavier-than-air machine that clearly cannot fly?

For your chosen argument (or arguments), do all of the following.

  1. Take the time to get this argument completely clear in your own mind.
  2. Identify the factual claims upon which this argument is based
  3. Try to understand the abstract logic that is supposed to make the argument work.
  4. Figure out whether or not all the factual claims upon which this argument is based are provably true.
  5. Figure out whether or not all the abstract logic upon which this argument is based is actually good logic.
  6. If the factual claims are provably true, and the logic really is good logic, write a paper according to Plan B below.
  7. If the factual claims are not provably true, or the logic really is not good logic, write a paper according to Plan A below.
Plan A
(You didn't change your mind based on your understanding of your chosen opposing argument)
  1. Clearly and completely explain your chosen opposing argument.
  2. If it failed factually, clearly and completely explain how it failed factually.
  3. If it failed logically, clearly and completely explain what's wrong with the abstract logic upon which this argument is based.
  4. Make any other comments that seem relevant to the overall logic of this argument.
Plan B
(You did change your mind based on your understanding of your chosen opposing argument)
  1. Clearly and completely explain your chosen opposing argument.
  2. Clearly and completely explain the abstract logical primciple upon which this argument is based.
  3. Explain what you thought about while analyzing this argument.
  4. Make any other comments that seem relevant to the overall logic of this argument.
  5. THEN clearly and completely explain what was wrong with YOUR original argument.
  6. If your original argument failed factually, clearly and completely explain how it failed factually.
  7. If your original argument failed logically, clearly and completely explain what was wrong with the abstract logic upon which it was based.
  8. Make any other comments that seem relevant to the overall logic of your original argument.

A paper that restricts itself to mindlessly parroting Searle's claims will receive zero points.

Copyright © 2017 by Martin C. Young

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: