In a response to criticism of this scenario, its creator laid out a difference between derived and intrinsic intentionality. The "systems reply," "combination reply," and "many mansions reply" each attempt to debunk it, whether by suggesting the existence of external system elements, or by claiming that mental processes are equivalent to computation processes while assuming that brains cause minds. Its creator used it as an argument against strong AI, and it parodies the Turing test while restating a Cartesian differentiation between thinking souls and unthinking automata. For 10 points, this is what thought experiment, put forward by John Searle, where a monolingual English speaker translates writing through the use of syntactic rules without any understanding of semantic content?
In a response to criticism of this scenario, its creator laid out a difference between derived and intrinsic intentionality. The "systems reply," "combination reply," and "many mansions reply" each attempt to debunk it, whether by suggesting the existence of external system elements, or by claiming that mental processes are equivalent to computation processes while assuming that brains cause minds. Its creator used it as an argument against strong AI, and it parodies the Turing test while restating a Cartesian differentiation between thinking souls and unthinking automata. For 10 points, this is what thought experiment, put forward by John Searle, where a monolingual English speaker translates writing through the use of syntactic rules without any understanding of semantic content?
In a response to criticism of this scenario, its creator laid out a difference between derived and intrinsic intentionality.
Chinese room argument [or Chinese box argument]