My take on Searle is that he was a hack. It's possible I judge too harshly, that _I_ am a hack (the likeliest, tbh) or that I and his writing have some fundamental life outlooks different.
Regardless, I think the Chinese room experiment is bunk and proves nothing. And I fail to gather where the medium of computation steps in the Chinese room experiment. The "computer" might as well be a bunch of neurons in a petry dish.
I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we develop superhumanly intelligent AI.
> I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we develop superhumanly intelligent AI.
I'm not sure that's the case. The universe itself is already capable of superhuman intelligence. There's nobody alive that can predict how wind will flow over an airfoil better than a wind tunnel.
The actual proof will be in the pudding if we develop superhumanly creative AI.
Regardless, I think the Chinese room experiment is bunk and proves nothing. And I fail to gather where the medium of computation steps in the Chinese room experiment. The "computer" might as well be a bunch of neurons in a petry dish.
I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we develop superhumanly intelligent AI.