1. P is an instantiated algorithm that behaves as if it [x]. (Where [x] = “understands and speaks Chinese”.)
2. If we examine P, we can easily see that its inner workings cannot possibly explain how it could [x].
3. Therefore, the fact that humans can [x] cannot be explainable by any algorithm.
I have some problem with your formulation. The fact that P does not understand [x] is nowhere in your formulation, not in premise #1. Conclusion #3 is wrong and should be written as “the fact that humans can [x] cannot be explainable by P”. This conclusion does not need the premise that “P does not understand [x]” but only premise #2. In fact, at least two conclusions can be derived from premise #2, including a conclusion that “P does not understand [x]”.
I state that—using a premise #2 that does not talk about any program—both Searle’s conclusions hold true, but do not apply to an algorithm which performs (simulates) semiosis.
The fact that P does not understand [x] is nowhere in your formulation, not in premise #1.
Yes it is. Reread more closely, please.
Conclusion #3 is wrong and should be written as “the fact that humans can [x] cannot be explainable by P”.
That is not Searle’s argument.
I don’t think anything more may productively be said in this conversation as long as (as seems to be the case) you don’t understand what Searle was arguing.
I have some problem with your formulation. The fact that P does not understand [x] is nowhere in your formulation, not in premise #1. Conclusion #3 is wrong and should be written as “the fact that humans can [x] cannot be explainable by P”. This conclusion does not need the premise that “P does not understand [x]” but only premise #2. In fact, at least two conclusions can be derived from premise #2, including a conclusion that “P does not understand [x]”.
I state that—using a premise #2 that does not talk about any program—both Searle’s conclusions hold true, but do not apply to an algorithm which performs (simulates) semiosis.
Yes it is. Reread more closely, please.
That is not Searle’s argument.
I don’t think anything more may productively be said in this conversation as long as (as seems to be the case) you don’t understand what Searle was arguing.