Intentionality and computationalism: minds, machines, Searle and Harnad
- 1 October 1990
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
- Vol. 2 (4) , 303-319
- https://doi.org/10.1080/09528139008953728
Abstract
Searle (1980, 1989) has produced a number of arguments purporting to show that computer programs, no matter how intelligently they may act, lack ‘ intentionality’ Recently, Harnad (1989) has accepted Searle' s arguments as having ‘ shaken the foundations of Artificial Intelligence’ (p. 5). To deal with Searle' s arguments, Harnad has introduced the need for ‘ noncomputational devices’ (e.g. transducers) to realize ‘ symbol grounding’ This paper critically examines both Searle' s and Hamad' s arguments and concludes that the foundations of AT remain unchanged by these arguments, that the Turing Test remains adequate as a test of intentionality, and that the philosophical position of computationalism remains perfectly reasonable as a working hypothesis for the task of describing and embodying intentionality in brains and machines.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Minds, machines and SearleJournal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 1989
- Connections and SymbolsPublished by MIT Press ,1988
- The promise and problems of connectionismBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1988
- On the proper treatment of connectionismBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1988
- Patterns, symbols, and understandingBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1985
- In-Depth UnderstandingPublished by MIT Press ,1983
- The Chinese room revisitedBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982
- Minds, brains, and programsBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980
- Intrinsic intentionalityBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980
- Physical Symbol Systems*Cognitive Science, 1980