When attacking the third "axiom" of its creator, Paul and Patricia Churchland used ideas from an approach made famous in their Scientific American rejoinder to it.
Before formally proposing this idea, its creator considered the "script applier mechanism," discussed in the work of Robert Abelson and Roger Schank. When attacking the third "axiom" of its creator, Paul and Patricia Churchland used ideas from an approach made famous in their Scientific American rejoinder to it. Formal objections to it include the systems reply, the "many mansions" reply, and the robot reply, all of which the author refutes on the basis of their incomplete understanding. First proposed in the paper Minds, Brains, and Programs in 1980, for ten points, name this thought experiment response to the Turing Test authored by John Searle, which concerns a certain language that a mere manipulator of symbols cannot truly understand.
Before formally proposing this idea, its creator considered the "script applier mechanism," discussed in the work of Robert Abelson and Roger Schank.
{Chinese Room} (problem, experiment, whatever)