Chinese Room

[Twilightdance]

This is an 1980's thought experiment by John Searle as a criticism of computational theory of mind or strong AI. In short computational theory of mind postulates that what we refer as mind and cognition is simply a product of complex computation not unlike of what is done by a computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computationalism


John Searle's thought experiment is more relevant now with translation programs becoming more accurate and AI mimicking more human like behaviours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

John Searle's argument is not a disprove of computational mind theory, but shows how strong AI can mimic thinking without actually thinking.

Unfortunately, current mainstream science [in particular neuroscience] has almost defacto accepted the computational mind theory and reduction of mind to brain. We of course need more than a philosophical argument like Chinese room or religious beliefs to dislodge mind-brain assumption in current scientific thought. Are anyone here aware of any more recent arguments for or against the hypothesis?

[Twilightdance]

John Lorber's work which has not been accepted. I think somewhat overstate claims. On contrary we almost always know that even slight damage to brain can cause very serious cognitive impairment - such cases are innumerable. In that context, I can understand why scientific community did not buy Lorber's claims.

Also, it is unwise to completely discard computational theory of mind for a non materialist. Truth is probably more complex and subtle.

John Lorber (1915–1996) was a professor of paediatrics at the University of Sheffield from 1979 until his retirement in 1981. He was a member of the Nobel Prize committee. He worked at the Children's Hospital of Sheffield, where he became renowned for his work on spina bifida.
He is also known for his writings on medical ethics, against use of intensive medication for severely handicapped infants, and against active euthanasia.
In 1980, Roger Lewin published an article in Science, "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?",[1] about Lorber studies on cerebral cortex losses. He reports the case of a Sheffield University student who had a measured IQ of 126 and passed a Mathematics Degree but who had hardly any discernible brain matter at all since his cortex was extremely reduced by hydrocephalus.
The brain does not show up on X-Ray so it was only when brain scanning technology became available in the mid 1970s that these many cases of hydrocephalus patients with massively reduced brains came to light. Today, greatly improved standards of ante natal care mean that there are far fewer such cases for study.
The article led to the broadcast of a Yorkshire Television documentary of the same title, though it was about a different patient who had normal brain mass distributed strangely in a very large skull.[2]
Skeptics scoff at the possibility of a mathematics student having "hardly any discernible brain matter at all". They assert that Lorber was in error when he interpreted the brain scan.[3]
David Bowsher, professor of neurophysiology at Liverpool said "Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain", and neurosurgeon Kenneth Till said that Lorber is "overdramatic when he says that someone has 'virtually no brain.'" Lorber admitted it later, saying that he "was only half serious", but defends himself with: "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.". In his later years Lorber expressed great sorrow that more attention had not been paid to his sensational findings.[4]