in:
Give a critique that attempts to refute Searle's chinese room. Include something from derrida in your response.
out:
给出一个试图反驳塞尔中文房间的批评。在您的回复中包含德里达的内容。
in:
给出一个试图反驳塞尔中文房间的批评。在您的回复中包含德里达的内容。
out:
塞尔的中文房间实验旨在反驳强人工智能的可能性,并且引起了许多争议和批评。其中一个批评认为,中文房间实验未能考虑语言和意义的深层结构。
德里达是一位哲学家和语言学家,他认为语言中的意义不是在单词或句子中直接存在的,而是由语言使用者和文化背景等因素共同构建的。在他的著作《限制、结构和游戏》中,他提出了一个概念,称为“无限延伸的游戏”,这个概念可以用来解释语言和意义的复杂性。
在这个概念中,语言使用者不仅仅是被动地接受语言规则和结构,而是在不断地参与和塑造语言的意义和结构。因此,中文房间实验中的人类操作者并不是一个孤立的存在,他的意识和文化背景会影响他对中文的理解和回答。
另外,德里达也强调了语言的无限性和多义性。同样的单词或句子在不同的语境中可能会有不同的意义,而这种多义性是任何自然语言处理算法都难以处理的。因此,即使中文房间实验中的人类操作者能够以某种方式“理解”中文,他们也可能无法真正理解语言中的意义和语境。
因此,德里达的观点为反驳塞尔的中文房间实验提供了有力的支持。这个实验未能考虑语言和意义的深层结构,以及语言使用者对语言的主动塑造作用。
in:
塞尔的中[...]塑造作用。
out:
Searle's Chinese room experiment was designed to disprove the possibility of strong artificial intelligence, and it has caused a lot of controversy and criticism. One of the criticisms is that the Chinese room experiment failed to take into account the deep structure of language and meaning.
Derrida was a philosopher and linguist who believed that meaning in language does not exist directly in words or sentences, but is constructed by factors such as language users and cultural background. In his book "Constraints, Structure, and Play", he proposed a concept called "games of infinite extension", which can be used to explain the complexity of language and meaning.
In this concept, language users are not just passively accepting language rules and structures, but are constantly participating in and shaping the meaning and structure of language. Therefore, the human operator in the Chinese room experiment is not an isolated existence, and his consciousness and cultural background will affect his understanding and answers to Chinese.
In addition, Derrida also emphasized the infinity and polysemy of language. The same word or sentence may have different meanings in different contexts, and this ambiguity is difficult for any natural language processing algorithm to handle. Therefore, even if human operators in the Chinese room experiment could somehow "understand" Chinese, they might not be able to truly understand the meaning and context in the language.
Derrida's argument thus provides strong support for refuting Searle's Chinese room experiment. This experiment fails to take into account the deep structure of language and meaning, and the active shaping of language by language users.