<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Consciousness on Alchemical Musings</title><link>https://alchemicalmusings.org/tags/consciousness/</link><description>Recent content in Consciousness on Alchemical Musings</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 04:20:19 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://alchemicalmusings.org/tags/consciousness/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>John's Best Friend</title><link>https://alchemicalmusings.org/2026/06/johns-best-friend/</link><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 04:20:19 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://alchemicalmusings.org/2026/06/johns-best-friend/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;There is a famous thought experiment in philosophy of mind that has haunted AI research for over forty years. John Searle&amp;rsquo;s &lt;a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/"&gt;Chinese Room Argument&lt;/a&gt;, introduced in his 1980 paper &amp;ldquo;&lt;a href="https://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/cs458/materials/minds-brains-and-programs.pdf"&gt;Minds, Brains, and Programs&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;rdquo; With a level of cultural sensitivity typical for his demographic and era, Searle asks us to imagine a person locked in a room, receiving slips of paper with Chinese characters written on them. The person follows an elaborate rulebook (aka an &amp;ldquo;algorithmic program&amp;rdquo;) that tells them which characters to pass back through the slot in response. To an outside observer, the room appears to understand Chinese. Searle&amp;rsquo;s point: it doesn&amp;rsquo;t. The person inside understands nothing. Syntax is not semantics. Symbol manipulation is not understanding.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The argument has generated more philosophical commentary than perhaps any other thought experiment since Einstein rode his imaginary locomotive. Functionalists, embodied cognitionists, systems theorists and armchair philosophers have all taken a swing. Most of the swings miss, because they accept Searle&amp;rsquo;s premises and argue about the conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I want to challenge the premise. Specifically, I want to enlist a mentor of mine, Prof. George Miller, known in many circles as the father of Cognitive Science. After Miller retired from teaching, he started the &lt;a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordNet"&gt;WordNet&lt;/a&gt; project and I met him over a summer internship helping to build the lexicon that anchored a generation of Natural Language Processing.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>