Re: The Chinese room is erroneous.
IMO opinion anyway.
It seems to be missing one or two aspects of human (our measure for intelligence) interaction. It would need something else.
A bit like how a cart is not a car, because it does not have self propulsion. Yes, as a larger system, the cart is using gravity, and the car petrol, so on some scales they do not differ... but a car can move against gravity, and a cart cannot. This is a *physical difference*.
Likewise, I can probably find a physical difference between the Chinese room and a human brain/intelligence, and thus show it's a false argument.
We know people are born, so there is at least one method of "starting/creating" intelligence. We don't know what that method is though. For instance, a Quantum calculator is also a physical object, but one we have more difficulty replicating (some instances are not replicable).
So finally, it may be something like intelligence is a developed system, not a built one. The chinese room fails in that it is expected to *contain* the required symbolism. It may be that human intelligence (or even low level general intelligence) is a system that can be built upon. (A Chinese room with all the info of a 100 year old mind pre-loaded into it, no longer becomes a logical analytical tool, because your close to increasing one of the measures to "magically instantly has infinite knowledge" and you mess up your calculation with nonsensical inputs. If we assume the Chinese room has the mind of a 2 year old... how does it "learn"? AFAIK it could not!!!)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
