If I remember right, Searle himself holds that understanding relies on how the system of rules is physically and biologically implemented in an environment. Part of his conclusion is that a non-biological machine can’t understand (or be conscious). But there are plenty of phenomena like this; no magic needed.
Also, the argument isn’t assuming your distinction, it’s arguing for it from other premises that seem intuitive initially.
Does the argument succeed? Probably not, for reasons others have given. But you can’t dismiss it as magic and nonsense.
doesnotcontainitself t1_ivqlssr wrote
Reply to comment by PassionatePossum in [D] What does it mean for an AI to understand? (Chinese Room Argument) - MLST Video by timscarfe
If I remember right, Searle himself holds that understanding relies on how the system of rules is physically and biologically implemented in an environment. Part of his conclusion is that a non-biological machine can’t understand (or be conscious). But there are plenty of phenomena like this; no magic needed.
Also, the argument isn’t assuming your distinction, it’s arguing for it from other premises that seem intuitive initially.
Does the argument succeed? Probably not, for reasons others have given. But you can’t dismiss it as magic and nonsense.