Here's my take, we must define "think" and depending on what "think" is either the rule book is all this person is allowed to use to make decisions or at random times the book will be completely ignored. (Check out my article on AI it will help better explain what I mean)
The question is not about a definition of 'thinking'. We can define it as we want for many different proposes. Searle's argument is direct to challenge the idea according to which a machine can think understanding 'think' as usual in English. His idea, as far as I can understand, an 'intentional semantics' or 'representational semantics' is required for the correct attribution of thinking.
Here's my take, we must define "think" and depending on what "think" is either the rule book is all this person is allowed to use to make decisions or at random times the book will be completely ignored. (Check out my article on AI it will help better explain what I mean)
The question is not about a definition of 'thinking'. We can define it as we want for many different proposes. Searle's argument is direct to challenge the idea according to which a machine can think understanding 'think' as usual in English. His idea, as far as I can understand, an 'intentional semantics' or 'representational semantics' is required for the correct attribution of thinking.
Thank you for your feedback. I'm looking forward to reading your paper. Where can I find it?