Writing
TFW in order to write the thing you need to write, you have to reference a scientific paper, and in so doing possibly break your own head.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692422/pdf/9854266.pdf
("How to Study Consciousness Scientficially," John Searle, Dept. of Philosophy.)
Writing
@literorrery Ah, good old Searle. That's him with the Chinese Room, you know. n..n
Writing
@Soreth Oh, I know. I didn't say I agreed with him, just that I needed some of his bullshit to season a text. =n.n=
Writing
@literorrery It's not complete bullshit here - this is the one where he tells people trying to pry qualia away from consciousness that they need to stop because they're inextricable.
(The Chinese Room is also an objection to a view that denies that qualia contribute meaningfully to a conscious system; lots of people forget that.)
Writing
@literorrery So that's a little funny. Technically he's objecting to a view called Functionalism, which says that if two mental systems have the same outputs, they should be considered to be equivalent.
But that would mean that qualia aren't important because it's not the internal state that's significant, but the external expression.
The Chinese Room gets used as an argument against an awful lot of things, but his original intention was as a counterexample to this specific view.
Writing
@literorrery It produces something like "understanding" but it lacks any qualia so it absolutely cannot be equivalent to any mental state of understanding. But Functionalism would say that the chinese room and someone understanding chinese and translating it should be viewed as equivalent.
Notice that in the article you linked he straight up says that our current understanding of consciousness is biological and chemical, it might be possible to produce it in different systems too.
Writing
@Soreth Yeah,I one reason I was reading it. Digital sentience and xenointelligence.
Writing
@Soreth I thought Searle was the one arguing against strong AI because of the Chinese Room argument.