John Searle believes that machines are not capable of “thinking” as humans and he developed the Chinese Room to support his theory (Searle). The Chinese Room argument is meant to prove that strong artificial intelligence does not have human intelligence. Searle describes this as human intentionality (Searle).
The Chinese Room argument involves a person, fluent in English only, sitting in a room. The person is given two sets of Chinese writing and a “rule book” to associate the two sets. The person does not know Chinese and is not able to distinguish Chinese from other similar languages. The symbols are no more than what Searle calls “meaningless squiggles” (Searle). A third set of Chinese characters is introduced with a set of rules that associate
…show more content…
However, after further analyzing his theory, I’m not certain the Chinese Room proves strong artificial intelligence is incapable of ‘’thinking.” The Chinese Room theory is dependent upon the “rule book.” This appears a very simple question and answer theory. What if the “rule book” was altered? What if the computer was told to analyze data using automated reasoning as demonstrated with IBM’s WATSON? Reason is the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason). If I accept this definition of reason, then it is possible for computers to “think.” However, I do not believe computers are capable of intentionality. Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/). Searle’s Chinese Room demonstrates that computers are incapable of intentionality. I could argue against the idea that machines are incapable of “thinking;” however, Searle’s theory demonstrates that machines are not capable of