searle can computers think
Does John Searle's Chinese room experiments prove that computers can not understand?
Can you please help me think of an objection to his idea to show that maybe computers can have intentionality.
It no objections. No matter how seeming intelligent, a computer behaves and no matter what the act of programming makes this example, since the symbols it processes are devoid of meaning (semantics) lost it, this is not really smart. It does not really thought about it. His statements and internal processes, purely syntactic, lack semantics (meaning), and it did not really say (intentional states) significantly mental.
Thinking Part 1 The Laws Of Thought
