Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-mhzq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T06:48:31.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Searle's Experiments with Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

William J. Rapaport
William J. Rapaport*
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Buffalo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Searle's provocative essay, “Minds, Brains, and Programs“ (1980), with its Chinese-room thought experiment (see the Appendix), has generated a great deal of interest and controversy among philosophers, computer scientists, and cognitive scientists.

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 271 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

An earlier version of this essay was presented as comments on Cole (1984) at the American Philosophical Association Western Division Colloquium on Cognitive Science, 26 April 1984. I am grateful to Andrea Schnall and to my colleagues in the SUNY Fredonia Department of Philosophy–Jane Kneller, Marvin Kohl, Michael Losonsky, Kenneth G. Lucey, and Morton L. Schagrin–for their comments on earlier drafts.

References

Cole, David (1984), “Thought and Thought Experiments”, Philosophical Studies 45: 431–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel (1980), “The Milk of Human Intentionality”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 428–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980), “Reductionism and Religion”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 433–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1981), “The Turing Test: A Coffeehouse Conversation”, in The Mind's I, Hofstadter, D. R. and Dennett, D. C. (eds.). New York: Basic Books, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. v. [1714] (1902), The Monadology. In Leibniz. Translated by G. R. Montgomery. La Salle IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Lenat, D. B. (1982), “AM: An Artifical Intelligence Approach to Discovery in Mathematics as Heuristic Search”, in Knowledge-Based Systems in Artificial Intelligence, Davis, R. and Lenat, D. B. (eds.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Maida, Anthony S., and Shapiro, Stuart C. (1982), “Intensional Concepts in Propositional Semantic Networks”, Cognitive Science 6: 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Zenon W. (1980), “The ‘Causal Power’ of Machines”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 442–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapaport, William J., and Shapiro, Stuart C. (1984), “Quasi-Indexical Reference in Propositional Semantic Networks”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-84). Morristown NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1980), “Minds, Brains, and Programs”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 417–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1983), Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Stuart C. (1982), “Generalized Augmented Transition Network Grammars for Generation from Semantic Networks”, American Journal of Computational Linguistics 88: 12–25.Google Scholar
Sharvy, Richard (1983), “It Ain't the Meat, It's the Motion”, Inquiry 26: 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar