The "Chinese Room" Argument: It's Not Thinking, It's Just an Algorithm
en.wikipedia.orgThis entire argument relies on an assumption that thinking or consciousness is something special and not just an algorithm. I don’t understand why people pay so much attention to Searle’s position, given how unrigorous it is.
Try applying your observation to you own counter argument:
Your "entire" counter "argument relies on an assumption that thinking or consciousness is" nothing special, just an algorithm.
As to rigor, you can support your argument very simply by showing an algorithm generate consciousness. As to "thinking"... define it.
However, those that think consciousness is something special beyond an algorithm need not produce any evidence beyond consciousness itself, because they claim nothing more than a mystery and the admonition to be wary as ordinary mechanical behavior may be confused with the mystery of consciousness, e.g., the Chinese Room.
IOW, if you think consciousness is not mysterious, all you need is a theory (i.e., mechanical manifestation) and a demonstration!
The world awaits!
Extensional mechanistic materialism can not bridge the metaphysical explanatory gap between extensionality & intentionality. Most scientific theories are based on reductive extensional logic & can not build their way back up to conscious intentionality w/o reintroducing dualism in some disguised fashion.
It seems like a pretty good description of how LLMs work.
RIP John Searle https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45563627