Minds and Machines

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 57–72 | Cite as

Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room

Article

Abstract

William Rapaport, in “How Helen Keller used syntactic semantics to escape from a Chinese Room,” (Rapaport 2006), argues that Helen Keller was in a sort of Chinese Room, and that her subsequent development of natural language fluency illustrates the flaws in Searle’s famous Chinese Room Argument and provides a method for developing computers that have genuine semantics (and intentionality). I contend that his argument fails. In setting the problem, Rapaport uses his own preferred definitions of semantics and syntax, but he does not translate Searle’s Chinese Room argument into that idiom before attacking it. Once the Chinese Room is translated into Rapaport’s idiom (in a manner that preserves the distinction between meaningful representations and uninterpreted symbols), I demonstrate how Rapaport’s argument fails to defeat the CRA. This failure brings a crucial element of the Chinese Room Argument to the fore: the person in the Chinese Room is prevented from connecting the Chinese symbols to his/her own meaningful experiences and memories. This issue must be addressed before any victory over the CRA is announced.

Keywords

Chinese room argument Searle Helen Keller Computationalism Meaning Experience Rapaport 

References

  1. Crane, T. (1996). The mechanical mind: A philosophical introduction to minds, machines and mental representation. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  2. Jahren, N. (1990). Can semantics be syntactic? Synthese, 82, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Morris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Morris, C. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  5. Preston, J., & Bishop, M. (Eds.). (2002). Views into the Chinese Room: New essays on Searle and artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Rapaport, W. J. (1995). Understanding understanding: Syntactic semantics and computational cognition. Philosophical Perspectives, 9, 49–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rapaport, W. J. (2006). How Helen Keller used syntactic semantics to escape from a Chinese Room. Minds and Machines, 16, 381–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rey, G. (1986). What’s really going on in Searle’s “Chinese Room”. Philosophical Studies, 50, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rey, G. (2002). Searle’s misunderstandings of functionalism and strong AI. In J. Preston & M. Bishop (Eds.), Views into the Chinese Room: New essays on Searle and artificial intelligence (pp. 201–225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Searle, J. R. (1984). Minds, brains and science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Searle, J. R. (1997). The mystery of consciousness. New York, NY: The New York Review of Books.Google Scholar
  13. Simon, H. A., & Eisenstadt, S. A. (2002). A Chinese Room that understands. In J. Preston & M. Bishop (Eds.), Views into the Chinese Room: New essays on Searle and artificial intelligence (pp. 95–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Minnesota, DuluthDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations