The Chinese room argument is about understanding, not emotions. There is a large body of literature on the use and evolutionary benefit of emotion. While you can make an analogy to see if a system can have emotions the link between understanding is not trivial. For example, animals show emotion but don’t have the same understanding that a human may have. I don’t think you need to have understanding to have emotions. So the Chinese room argument is shoe horned in without making it clear what your argument is.
The discussion was about suffering which I take to be an emotional response. The comment I responded to seem to say a “chinese room” argument was a unassailable argument without elaborating why. The only way I make sense of that comment is that the author thinks it’s already proved that a Chinese Room can’t experience emotions.
Yes, the Chinese Room argument was originally about understanding but I don’t see how that enters into this discussion.
The Chinese room argument is about understanding, not emotions. There is a large body of literature on the use and evolutionary benefit of emotion. While you can make an analogy to see if a system can have emotions the link between understanding is not trivial. For example, animals show emotion but don’t have the same understanding that a human may have. I don’t think you need to have understanding to have emotions. So the Chinese room argument is shoe horned in without making it clear what your argument is.
The discussion was about suffering which I take to be an emotional response. The comment I responded to seem to say a “chinese room” argument was a unassailable argument without elaborating why. The only way I make sense of that comment is that the author thinks it’s already proved that a Chinese Room can’t experience emotions.
Yes, the Chinese Room argument was originally about understanding but I don’t see how that enters into this discussion.