John Searle
John Searle
John Rogers Searleis an American philosopher and currently the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. Widely noted for his contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy, he began teaching at Berkeley in 1959. He received the Jean Nicod Prize in 2000; the National Humanities Medal in 2004; and the Mind & Brain Prize in 2006. Among his notable concepts is the "Chinese room" argument against "strong" artificial intelligence...
NationalityAmerican
ProfessionPhilosopher
Date of Birth1 December 1932
CountryUnited States of America
Many people mistakenly suppose that the essence of consciousness is that of a control mechanism
Dualism makes the problem insoluble; materialism denies the existence of any phenomenon to study, and hence of any problem.
I want to block some common misunderstandings about understanding: In many of these discussions one finds a lot of fancy footwork about the word understanding.
If you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself
The Intentionality of the mind not only creates the possibility of meaning, but limits its forms.
How do we get from electrons to elections and from protons to presidents?
My car and my adding machine understand nothing: they are not in that line of business
Because we do not understand the brain very well we are constantly tempted to use the latest technology as a model for trying to understand it. In my childhood we were always assured that the brain was a telephone switchboard...Sherrington, the great British neuroscientist, thought the brain worked like a telegraph system. Freud often compared the brain to hydraulic and electromagnetic systems. Leibniz compared it to a mill...At present, obviously, the metaphor is the digital computer.
In the performance of an illocutionary act in the literal utterance of a sentence, the speaker intends to produce a certain effect by means of getting the hearer to recognize his intention to produce that effect; and furthermore, if he is using the words literally, he intends this recognition to be achieved in virtue of the fact that the rules for using the expressions he utters associate the expression with the production of that effect.
Where consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality.
You do not understand your own tradition if you do not see it in relation to others.
You can't *discover* that the brain is a digital computer. You can only *interpret* the brain as a digital computer.
Whatever is referred to must exist. Let us call this the axiom of existence.
An utterance can have Intentionality, just as a belief has Intentionality, but whereas the Intentionality of the belief is intrinsic the Intentionality of the utterance is derived.