Searle meant the mechanically performing technician as an analogy for the mechanical, deterministic processes in a computer. You cannot reject Searle by magically introducing computation which is outside of the symbol lookup table, just like in a computer, there is no computation happening outside of the computer’s circuits.
Now, the mistake that Searle made was much more trivial and embarrassing. From Wikipedia:
The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally “understand” Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
There is no empirical difference underlying the conundrum. If Searle was made to explain what he means by “literally understand” and how it differs from “merely simulating”, the problem would dissolve.
There is no empirical difference underlying the conundrum
Lots of things disappear if you restrict empiricism to the outside, objective view. Subjectively, there is a difference between doing something by rote and really understanding it.
Searle meant the mechanically performing technician as an analogy for the mechanical, deterministic processes in a computer. You cannot reject Searle by magically introducing computation which is outside of the symbol lookup table, just like in a computer, there is no computation happening outside of the computer’s circuits.
Now, the mistake that Searle made was much more trivial and embarrassing. From Wikipedia:
There is no empirical difference underlying the conundrum. If Searle was made to explain what he means by “literally understand” and how it differs from “merely simulating”, the problem would dissolve.
Lots of things disappear if you restrict empiricism to the outside, objective view. Subjectively, there is a difference between doing something by rote and really understanding it.