Writing Homework Help

Full Topic:

Searle makes the following claim: “As long as the program is defined in terms of computational operations on purely formally defined elements, what the [Chinese Room] suggests is that these by themselves have no interesting connection with understanding. They are certainly not sufficient conditions, and not the slightest reason has been given to suppose that they are necessary conditions or even that they make a significant contribution to understanding” (418). Searle is claiming that there is no reason to accept that understanding arises from a computational system: a computational system is not sufficient for understanding and it may not even be necessary.

Dennett makes the following claim:“…for each predictively attributable belief, there will be a functionally salient internal state of the machinery, decomposable into functional parts in just about the same way the sentence expressing the belief is decomposable into parts— that is, words or terms. The inferences we attribute to rational creatures will be mirrored by physical, causal processes in the hardware…” (76). Dennett is claiming that the reason that the intentional strategy works is because the mind is computational. We are able to ascribe intentionality to other systems because minds are computational. This takes computational structure to at least be sufficient for intentionality. Present and explain Searle’s Chinese Room argument. Then, present and explain Dennett’s intentional strategy. Characterize the point of contention between the two views. Finally, pick a side: is Searle or Dennett right?

Defend your position being sure to consider at least one objection to your defense.

Two papers are attached.

The requirement must follow the writing style down here:

*Introduction*:

1. Identify the articles

2. describe the view

3. State your position

——————————————————————

*Summary*: (1.5-2 pages)

1. summarize only relevant parts of the paper

2. searle

3. dennett

4. disagreemennt

(Logically organized, not chronologically)

——————————————————————

*Critique / Argument*: Two ways chose one (*longer than summary*)

1. Define in terms of what’s problematic

* the reasons are false

* reasons are mistaken

* other things the author fail to note

2. Define what you agree with

——————————————————————

*Counter example / Objection*:

1. How would someone challenge your argument

2. Be reasonable

3. provide reasons

——————————————————————

*Conclusion*:

* Brief Summary

* *no new information, claims, or criticisms**