The question is not about a definition of 'thinking'. We can define it as we want for many different proposes. Searle's argument is direct to challenge the idea according to which a machine can think understanding 'think' as usual in English. His idea, as far as I can understand, an 'intentional semantics' or 'representational semantics' is required for the correct attribution of thinking.
RE: Sad Searle in his Chinese room wondering whether a machine thinks or not...
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sad Searle in his Chinese room wondering whether a machine thinks or not...