Talk:Chinese room

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese room article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 3 months

Philosophy: Logic / Mind / Analytic / Contemporary High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of mind
	Analytic philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Structural prerequisites for Brodmannian personhood-yielding computer–brain

Searle (see: John Searle's Chinese Room Argument) is stupid. The human in the Chinese room can be replaced with a procedure/ a mechanism. The Chinese room is impersonal if it has few Brodmannian data-processing modalities, and fully personal if it has many Brodmannian modalities very closely mimicking the human brain, but it needs fundamental variation. Typical chatbots nowadays act like a single Brodmann area. They must have more variable and plenty modalities mimicking the human Brodmann areas. 2A02:587:4F0A:2300:6183:B7EA:86BB:D8DD (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO most philosophical musings are stupid. However in Wikipedia we do not make decisions of which philosopher stupid and who is not. We merely report their positions. If you have a reference to another well-known philosopher thinks Searle ~~is stupid~~ makes a mistake, we can take a look how it can be sed in Wikipedia. Otherwise please keep in mind that Wikipadia is not a discussion board, see WP:NOTAFORUM. --Altenmann >talk 02:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]