title: Pencil

text: The majority of pencils made in the US are painted yellow. According to Henry Petroski, this tradition began in 1890 when the L. & C. Hardtmuth Company of Austria-Hungary introduced their Koh-I-Noor brand, named after the famous diamond. It was intended to be the world's best and most expensive pencil, and at a time when most pencils were either painted in dark colours or not at all, the Koh-I-Noor was yellow.


title: Pencil

text: As well as simply being distinctive, the colour may have been inspired by the Austro-Hungarian flag; it was also suggestive of the Orient at a time when the best-quality graphite came from Siberia. Other companies then copied the yellow colour so that their pencils would be associated with this high-quality brand, and chose brand names with explicit Oriental references, such as Mikado (renamed Mirado) and Mongol.


title: Pencil

text: Not all countries use yellow pencils. German and Brazilian pencils, for example, are often green, blue or black, based on the trademark colours of Faber-Castell, a major German stationery company which has plants in those countries. In southern European countries, pencils tend to be dark red or black with yellow lines, while in Australia, they are red with black bands at one end. In India, the most common pencil colour scheme was dark red with black lines, and pencils with a large number of colour schemes are produced.


title: Pencil

text: Pencils are commonly round, hexagonal, or sometimes triangular in section. Carpenters' pencils are typically oval or rectangular, so they cannot easily roll away during work.


title: Chinese room

text: The Chinese room argument holds that a digital computer executing a program cannot have a "mind," "understanding" or "consciousness," regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. The argument was presented by philosopher John Searle in his paper, "Minds, Brains, and Programs", published in "Behavioral and Brain Sciences" in 1980. Similar arguments were presented by Gottfried Leibniz (1714), Anatoly Dneprov (1961), Lawrence Davis (1974) and Ned Block (1978). Searle's version has been widely discussed in the years since. The centerpiece of Searle's argument is a thought experiment known as the "Chinese room".


title: Chinese room

text: The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism, which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information-processing system operating on formal symbols, and that simulation of a given mental state is sufficient for its presence. Specifically, the argument is intended to refute a position Searle calls strong AI: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds."


title: Chinese room

text: Although it was originally presented in reaction to the statements of artificial intelligence (AI) researchers, it is not an argument against the goals of mainstream AI research because it does not show a limit in the amount of "intelligent" behavior a machine can display. The argument applies only to digital computers running programs and does not apply to machines in general.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle's thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.


title: Chinese room

text: The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine "literally" "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely "simulating" the ability to understand Chinese? Searle calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak AI".


title: Chinese room

text: Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient papers, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output, without understanding any of the content of the Chinese writing. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that is then interpreted by the user as demonstrating intelligent conversation. However, Searle himself would not be able to understand the conversation. ("I don't speak a word of Chinese," he points out.) Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the "strong AI" hypothesis is false.


title: Chinese room

text: Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument in 1714 against mechanism (the position that the mind is a machine and nothing more). Leibniz used the thought experiment of expanding the brain until it was the size of a mill. Leibniz found it difficult to imagine that a "mind" capable of "perception" could be constructed using only mechanical processes.


title: Chinese room

text: Soviet cyberneticist Anatoly Dneprov made an essentially identical argument in 1961, in the form of the short story "The Game". In it, a stadium of people act as switches and memory cells implementing a program to translate a sentence of Portuguese, a language that none of them knows. The game was organized by a "Professor Zarubin" to answer the question "Can mathematical machines think?" Speaking through Zarubin, Dneprov writes "the only way to prove that machines can think is to turn yourself into a machine and examine your thinking process." and he concludes, as Searle does, "We’ve proven that even the most perfect simulation of machine thinking is not the thinking process itself."


title: Chinese room

text: In 1974, Lawrence Davis imagined duplicating the brain using telephone lines and offices staffed by people, and in 1978 Ned Block envisioned the entire population of China involved in such a brain simulation. This thought experiment is called the China brain, also the "Chinese Nation" or the "Chinese Gym".


title: Chinese room

text: Searle's version appeared in his 1980 paper "Minds, Brains, and Programs", published in "Behavioral and Brain Sciences". It eventually became the journal's "most influential target article", generating an enormous number of commentaries and responses in the ensuing decades, and Searle has continued to defend and refine the argument in many papers, popular articles and books. David Cole writes that "the Chinese Room argument has probably been the most widely discussed philosophical argument in cognitive science to appear in the past 25 years".


title: Chinese room

text: Most of the discussion consists of attempts to refute it. "The overwhelming majority", notes "BBS" editor Stevan Harnad, "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong". The sheer volume of the literature that has grown up around it inspired Pat Hayes to comment that the field of cognitive science ought to be redefined as "the ongoing research program of showing Searle's Chinese Room Argument to be false".


title: Chinese room

text: Searle's argument has become "something of a classic in cognitive science", according to Harnad. Varol Akman agrees, and has described the original paper as "an exemplar of philosophical clarity and purity".


title: Chinese room

text: Although the Chinese Room argument was originally presented in reaction to the statements of artificial intelligence researchers, philosophers have come to consider it as an important part of the philosophy of mind. It is a challenge to functionalism and the computational theory of mind, and is related to such questions as the mind–body problem, the problem of other minds, the symbol-grounding problem, and the hard problem of consciousness.


title: Chinese room

text: The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds.


title: Chinese room

text: The definition depends on the distinction between "simulating" a mind and "actually having" a mind. Searle writes that "according to Strong AI, the correct simulation really is a mind. According to Weak AI, the correct simulation is a model of the mind."


title: Chinese room

text: The claim is implicit in some of the statements of early AI researchers and analysts. For example, in 1955, AI founder Herbert A. Simon declared that "there are now in the world machines that think, that learn and create". Simon, together with Allen Newell and Cliff Shaw, after having completed the first "AI" program, the Logic Theorist, claimed that they had "solved the venerable mind–body problem, explaining how a system composed of matter can have the properties of mind." John Haugeland wrote that "AI wants only the genuine article: "machines with minds", in the full and literal sense. This is not science fiction, but real science, based on a theoretical conception as deep as it is daring: namely, we are, at root, "computers ourselves"."


title: Chinese room

text: In more recent presentations of the Chinese room argument, Searle has identified "strong AI" as "computer functionalism" (a term he attributes to Daniel Dennett). Functionalism is a position in modern philosophy of mind that holds that we can define mental phenomena (such as beliefs, desires, and perceptions) by describing their functions in relation to each other and to the outside world. Because a computer program can accurately represent functional relationships as relationships between symbols, a computer can have mental phenomena if it runs the right program, according to functionalism.


title: Chinese room

text: Stevan Harnad argues that Searle's depictions of strong AI can be reformulated as "recognizable tenets of "computationalism", a position (unlike "strong AI") that is actually held by many thinkers, and hence one worth refuting." Computationalism is the position in the philosophy of mind which argues that the mind can be accurately described as an information-processing system.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle holds a philosophical position he calls "biological naturalism": that consciousness and understanding require specific biological machinery that are found in brains. He writes "brains cause minds" and that "actual human mental phenomena [are] dependent on actual physical–chemical properties of actual human brains". Searle argues that this machinery (known to neuroscience as the "neural correlates of consciousness") must have some causal powers that permit the human experience of consciousness. Searle's belief in the existence of these powers has been criticized.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle does not disagree with the notion that machines can have consciousness and understanding, because, as he writes, "we are precisely such machines". Searle holds that the brain is, in fact, a machine, but that the brain gives rise to consciousness and understanding using machinery that is non-computational. If neuroscience is able to isolate the mechanical process that gives rise to consciousness, then Searle grants that it may be possible to create machines that have consciousness and understanding. However, without the specific machinery required, Searle does not believe that consciousness can occur.


title: Chinese room

text: Biological naturalism implies that one cannot determine if the experience of consciousness is occurring merely by examining how a system functions, because the specific machinery of the brain is essential. Thus, biological naturalism is directly opposed to both behaviorism and functionalism (including "computer functionalism" or "strong AI"). Biological naturalism is similar to identity theory (the position that mental states are "identical to" or "composed of" neurological events); however, Searle has specific technical objections to identity theory. Searle's biological naturalism and strong AI are both opposed to Cartesian dualism, the classical idea that the brain and mind are made of different "substances". Indeed, Searle accuses strong AI of dualism, writing that "strong AI only makes sense given the dualistic assumption that, where the mind is concerned, the brain doesn't matter."


title: Chinese room

text: Searle's original presentation emphasized "understanding"—that is, mental states with what philosophers call "intentionality"—and did not directly address other closely related ideas such as "consciousness". However, in more recent presentations Searle has included consciousness as the real target of the argument.


title: Chinese room

text: David Chalmers writes "it is fairly clear that consciousness is at the root of the matter" of the Chinese room.


title: Chinese room

text: Colin McGinn argues that the Chinese room provides strong evidence that the hard problem of consciousness is fundamentally insoluble. The argument, to be clear, is not about whether a machine can be conscious, but about whether it (or anything else for that matter) can be shown to be conscious. It is plain that any other method of probing the occupant of a Chinese room has the same difficulties in principle as exchanging questions and answers in Chinese. It is simply not possible to divine whether a conscious agency or some clever simulation inhabits the room.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle argues that this is only true for an observer "outside" of the room. The whole point of the thought experiment is to put someone "inside" the room, where they can directly observe the operations of consciousness. Searle claims that from his vantage point within the room there is nothing he can see that could imaginably give rise to consciousness, other than himself, and clearly he does not have a mind that can speak Chinese.


title: Chinese room

text: Patrick Hew used the Chinese Room argument to deduce requirements from military command and control systems if they are to preserve a commander's moral agency. He drew an analogy between a commander in their command center and the person in the Chinese Room, and analyzed it under a reading of Aristotle’s notions of "compulsory" and "ignorance". Information could be "down converted" from meaning to symbols, and manipulated symbolically, but moral agency could be undermined if there was inadequate 'up conversion' into meaning. Hew cited examples from the USS "Vincennes" incident.


title: Chinese room

text: The Chinese room argument is primarily an argument in the philosophy of mind, and both major computer scientists and artificial intelligence researchers consider it irrelevant to their fields. However, several concepts developed by computer scientists are essential to understanding the argument, including symbol processing, Turing machines, Turing completeness, and the Turing test.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle's arguments are not usually considered an issue for AI research. Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig observe that most AI researchers "don't care about the strong AI hypothesis—as long as the program works, they don't care whether you call it a simulation of intelligence or real intelligence." The primary mission of artificial intelligence research is only to create useful systems that "act" intelligently, and it does not matter if the intelligence is "merely" a simulation.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle does not disagree that AI research can create machines that are capable of highly intelligent behavior. The Chinese room argument leaves open the possibility that a digital machine could be built that "acts" more intelligently than a person, but does not have a mind or intentionality in the same way that brains do.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle's "strong AI" should not be confused with "strong AI" as defined by Ray Kurzweil and other futurists, who use the term to describe machine intelligence that rivals or exceeds human intelligence. Kurzweil is concerned primarily with the "amount" of intelligence displayed by the machine, whereas Searle's argument sets no limit on this. Searle argues that even a superintelligent machine would not necessarily have a mind and consciousness.


title: Chinese room

text: The Chinese room implements a version of the Turing test. Alan Turing introduced the test in 1950 to help answer the question "can machines think?" In the standard version, a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test.


title: Chinese room

text: Turing then considered each possible objection to the proposal "machines can think", and found that there are simple, obvious answers if the question is de-mystified in this way. He did not, however, intend for the test to measure for the presence of "consciousness" or "understanding". He did not believe this was relevant to the issues that he was addressing. He wrote:


title: Chinese room

text: To Searle, as a philosopher investigating in the nature of mind and consciousness, these are the relevant mysteries. The Chinese room is designed to show that the Turing test is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness, even if the room can behave or function as a conscious mind would.


title: Chinese room

text: The Chinese room (and all modern computers) manipulate physical objects in order to carry out calculations and do simulations. AI researchers Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon called this kind of machine a physical symbol system. It is also equivalent to the formal systems used in the field of mathematical logic.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle emphasizes the fact that this kind of symbol manipulation is syntactic (borrowing a term from the study of grammar). The computer manipulates the symbols using a form of syntax rules, without any knowledge of the symbol's semantics (that is, their meaning).


title: Chinese room

text: Newell and Simon had conjectured that a physical symbol system (such as a digital computer) had all the necessary machinery for "general intelligent action", or, as it is known today, artificial general intelligence. They framed this as a philosophical position, the physical symbol system hypothesis: "A physical symbol system has the necessary and sufficient means for general intelligent action." The Chinese room argument does not refute this, because it is framed in terms of "intelligent action", i.e. the external behavior of the machine, rather than the presence or absence of understanding, consciousness and mind.


title: Chinese room

text: The Chinese room has a design analogous to that of a modern computer. It has a Von Neumann architecture, which consists of a program (the book of instructions), some memory (the papers and file cabinets), a CPU that follows the instructions (the man), and a means to write symbols in memory (the pencil and eraser). A machine with this design is known in theoretical computer science as "Turing complete", because it has the necessary machinery to carry out any computation that a Turing machine can do, and therefore it is capable of doing a step-by-step simulation of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. Alan Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." The widely accepted Church–Turing thesis holds that any function computable by an effective procedure is computable by a Turing machine.


title: Chinese room

text: The Turing completeness of the Chinese room implies that it can do whatever any other digital computer can do (albeit much, much more slowly). Thus, if the Chinese room does not or can not contain a Chinese-speaking mind, then no other digital computer can contain a mind. Some replies to Searle begin by arguing that the room, as described, cannot have a Chinese-speaking mind. Arguments of this form, according to Stevan Harnad, are "no refutation (but rather an affirmation)" of the Chinese room argument, because these arguments actually imply that "no" digital computers can have a mind.


title: Chinese room

text: There are some critics, such as Hanoch Ben-Yami, who argue that the Chinese room cannot simulate all the abilities of a digital computer, such as being able to determine the current time.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle has produced a more formal version of the argument of which the Chinese Room forms a part. He presented the first version in 1984. The version given below is from 1990. The Chinese room thought experiment is intended to prove point A3.


title: Chinese room

text: This much of the argument is intended to show that artificial intelligence can never produce a machine with a mind by writing programs that manipulate symbols. The remainder of the argument addresses a different issue. Is the human brain running a program? In other words, is the computational theory of mind correct? He begins with an axiom that is intended to express the basic modern scientific consensus about brains and minds:


title: Chinese room

text: Refutations of Searle's argument take many different forms (see below). Computationalists and functionalists reject A3, arguing that "syntax" (as Searle describes it) "can" have "semantics" if the syntax has the right functional structure. Eliminative materialists reject A2, arguing that minds don't actually have "semantics" -- that thoughts and other mental phenomena are inherently meaningless but nevertheless function as if they had meaning.


title: Chinese room

text: These replies attempt to answer the question: since the man in the room doesn't speak Chinese, "where" is the "mind" that does? These replies address the key ontological issues of mind vs. body and simulation vs. reality. All of the replies that identify the mind in the room are versions of "the system reply".


title: Chinese room

text: The basic version of the system reply argues that it is the "whole system" that understands Chinese. While the man understands only English, when he is combined with the program, scratch paper, pencils and file cabinets, they form a system that can understand Chinese. "Here, understanding is not being ascribed to the mere individual; rather it is being ascribed to this whole system of which he is a part" Searle explains. The fact that a certain man does not understand Chinese is irrelevant, because it is only the system as a whole that matters.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle notes that (in this simple version of the reply) the "system" is nothing more than a collection of ordinary physical objects; it grants the power of understanding and consciousness to "the conjunction of that person and bits of paper" without making any effort to explain how this pile of objects has become a conscious, thinking being. Searle argues that no reasonable person should be satisfied with the reply, unless they are "under the grip of an ideology;" In order for this reply to be remotely plausible, one must take it for granted that consciousness can be the product of an information processing "system", and does not require anything resembling the actual biology of the brain.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle then responds by simplifying this list of physical objects: he asks what happens if the man memorizes the rules and keeps track of everything in his head? Then the whole system consists of just one object: the man himself. Searle argues that if the man does not understand Chinese then the system does not understand Chinese either because now "the system" and "the man" both describe exactly the same object.


title: Chinese room

text: Critics of Searle's response argue that the program has allowed the man to have two minds in one head. If we assume a "mind" is a form of information processing, then the theory of computation can account for two computations occurring at once, namely (1) the computation for universal programmability (which is the function instantiated by the person and note-taking materials "independently" from any particular program contents) and (2) the computation of the Turing machine that is described by the program (which is instantiated by everything "including" the specific program). The theory of computation thus formally explains the open possibility that the second computation in the Chinese Room could entail a human-equivalent semantic understanding of the Chinese inputs. The focus belongs on the program's Turing machine rather than on the person's. However, from Searle's perspective, this argument is circular. The question at issue is whether consciousness is a form of information processing, and this reply requires that we make that assumption.


title: Chinese room

text: More sophisticated versions of the systems reply try to identify more precisely what "the system" is and they differ in exactly how they describe it. According to these replies, the "mind that speaks Chinese" could be such things as: the "software", a "program", a "running program", a simulation of the "neural correlates of consciousness", the "functional system", a "simulated mind", an "emergent property", or "a virtual mind" (described below).


title: Chinese room

text: Marvin Minsky suggested a version of the system reply known as the "virtual mind reply". The term "virtual" is used in computer science to describe an object that appears to exist "in" a computer (or computer network) only because software makes it appear to exist. The objects "inside" computers (including files, folders, and so on) are all "virtual", except for the computer's electronic components. Similarly, Minsky argues, a computer may contain a "mind" that is virtual in the same sense as virtual machines, virtual communities and virtual reality.


title: Chinese room

text: To clarify the distinction between the simple systems reply given above and virtual mind reply, David Cole notes that two simulations could be running on one system at the same time: one speaking Chinese and one speaking Korean. While there is only one system, there can be multiple "virtual minds," thus the "system" cannot be the "mind".


title: Chinese room

text: Searle responds that such a mind is, at best, a simulation, and writes: "No one supposes that computer simulations of a five-alarm fire will burn the neighborhood down or that a computer simulation of a rainstorm will leave us all drenched." Nicholas Fearn responds that, for some things, simulation is as good as the real thing. "When we call up the pocket calculator function on a desktop computer, the image of a pocket calculator appears on the screen. We don't complain that 'it isn't "really" a calculator', because the physical attributes of the device do not matter." The question is, is the human mind like the pocket calculator, essentially composed of information? Or is the mind like the rainstorm, something other than a computer, and not realizable in full by a computer simulation? For decades, this question of simulation has led AI researchers and philosophers to consider whether the term "synthetic intelligence" is more appropriate than the common description of such intelligences as "artificial."


title: Chinese room

text: These replies provide an explanation of exactly who it is that understands Chinese. If there is something "besides" the man in the room that can understand Chinese, Searle cannot argue that (1) the man does not understand Chinese, therefore (2) nothing in the room understands Chinese. This, according to those who make this reply, shows that Searle's argument fails to prove that "strong AI" is false.


title: Chinese room

text: These replies, by themselves, do not provide any evidence that strong AI is "true", however. They do not show that the system (or the virtual mind) understands Chinese, other than the hypothetical premise that it passes the Turing Test. Searle argues that, if we are to consider Strong AI remotely plausible, the Chinese Room is an example that requires explanation, and it is difficult or impossible to explain how consciousness might "emerge" from the room or how the system would have consciousness. As Searle writes "the systems reply simply begs the question by insisting that the system must understand Chinese" and thus is dodging the question or hopelessly circular.


title: Chinese room

text: As far as the person in the room is concerned, the symbols are just meaningless "squiggles." But if the Chinese room really "understands" what it is saying, then the symbols must get their meaning from somewhere. These arguments attempt to connect the symbols to the things they symbolize. These replies address Searle's concerns about intentionality, symbol grounding and syntax vs. semantics.


title: Chinese room

text: To each of these suggestions, Searle's response is the same: no matter how much knowledge is written into the program and no matter how the program is connected to the world, he is still in the room manipulating symbols according to rules. His actions are syntactic and this can never explain to him what the symbols stand for. Searle writes "syntax is insufficient for semantics."


title: Chinese room

text: However, for those who accept that Searle's actions simulate a mind, separate from his own, the important question is not what the symbols mean "to Searle", what is important is what they mean "to the virtual mind." While Searle is trapped in the room, the virtual mind is not: it is connected to the outside world through the Chinese speakers it speaks to, through the programmers who gave it world knowledge, and through the cameras and other sensors that roboticists can supply.


title: Chinese room

text: These arguments are all versions of the systems reply that identify a particular "kind" of system as being important; they identify some special technology that would create conscious understanding in a machine. (The "robot" and "commonsense knowledge" replies above also specify a certain kind of system as being important.)


title: Chinese room

text: These arguments (and the robot or commonsense knowledge replies) identify some special technology that would help create conscious understanding in a machine. They may be interpreted in two ways: either they claim (1) this technology is required for consciousness, the Chinese room does not or cannot implement this technology, and therefore the Chinese room cannot pass the Turing test or (even if it did) it would not have conscious understanding. Or they may be claiming that (2) it is easier to see that the Chinese room has a mind if we visualize this technology as being used to create it.


title: Chinese room

text: In the first case, where features like a robot body or a connectionist architecture are required, Searle claims that strong AI (as he understands it) has been abandoned. The Chinese room has all the elements of a Turing complete machine, and thus is capable of simulating any digital computation whatsoever. If Searle's room cannot pass the Turing test then there is no other digital technology that could pass the Turing test. If Searle's room "could" pass the Turing test, but still does not have a mind, then the Turing test is not sufficient to determine if the room has a "mind". Either way, it denies one or the other of the positions Searle thinks of as "strong AI", proving his argument.


title: Chinese room

text: The brain arguments in particular deny strong AI if they assume that there is no simpler way to describe the mind than to create a program that is just as mysterious as the brain was. He writes "I thought the whole idea of strong AI was that we don't need to know how the brain works to know how the mind works." If computation does not provide an "explanation" of the human mind, then strong AI has failed, according to Searle.


title: Chinese room

text: Other critics hold that the room as Searle described it does, in fact, have a mind, however they argue that it is difficult to see—Searle's description is correct, but "misleading." By redesigning the room more realistically they hope to make this more obvious. In this case, these arguments are being used as appeals to intuition (see next section).


title: Chinese room

text: In fact, the room can just as easily be redesigned to "weaken" our intuitions. Ned Block's Blockhead argument suggests that the program could, in theory, be rewritten into a simple lookup table of rules of the form "if the user writes "S", reply with "P" and goto X". At least in principle, any program can be rewritten (or "refactored") into this form, even a brain simulation. In the blockhead scenario, the entire mental state is hidden in the letter X, which represents a memory address—a number associated with the next rule. It is hard to visualize that an instant of one's conscious experience can be captured in a single large number, yet this is exactly what "strong AI" claims. On the other hand, such a lookup table would be ridiculously large (to the point of being physically impossible), and the states could therefore be "extremely" specific.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle argues that however the program is written or however the machine is connected to the world, the mind is being "simulated" by a simple step-by-step digital machine (or machines). These machines are always just like the man in the room: they understand nothing and do not speak Chinese. They are merely manipulating symbols without knowing what they mean. Searle writes: "I can have any formal program you like, but I still understand nothing."


title: Chinese room

text: The following arguments (and the intuitive interpretations of the arguments above) do not directly explain how a Chinese speaking mind could exist in Searle's room, or how the symbols he manipulates could become meaningful. However, by raising doubts about Searle's intuitions they support other positions, such as the system and robot replies. These arguments, if accepted, prevent Searle from claiming that his conclusion is obvious by undermining the intuitions that his certainty requires.


title: Chinese room

text: Several critics believe that Searle's argument relies entirely on intuitions. Ned Block writes "Searle's argument depends for its force on intuitions that certain entities do not think." Daniel Dennett describes the Chinese room argument as a misleading "intuition pump" and writes "Searle's thought experiment depends, illicitly, on your imagining too simple a case, an irrelevant case, and drawing the 'obvious' conclusion from it."


title: Chinese room

text: Some of the arguments above also function as appeals to intuition, especially those that are intended to make it seem more plausible that the Chinese room contains a mind, which can include the robot, commonsense knowledge, brain simulation and connectionist replies. Several of the replies above also address the specific issue of complexity. The connectionist reply emphasizes that a working artificial intelligence system would have to be as complex and as interconnected as the human brain. The commonsense knowledge reply emphasizes that any program that passed a Turing test would have to be "an extraordinarily supple, sophisticated, and multilayered system, brimming with 'world knowledge' and meta-knowledge and meta-meta-knowledge", as Daniel Dennett explains.


title: Chinese room

text: Many of these critiques emphasize speed and complexity of the human brain, which processes information at 100 billion operations per second (by some estimates). Several critics point out that the man in the room would probably take millions of years to respond to a simple question, and would require "filing cabinets" of astronomical proportions. This brings the clarity of Searle's intuition into doubt.


title: Chinese room

text: An especially vivid version of the speed and complexity reply is from Paul and Patricia Churchland. They propose this analogous thought experiment: "Consider a dark room containing a man holding a bar magnet or charged object. If the man pumps the magnet up and down, then, according to Maxwell's theory of artificial luminance (AL), it will initiate a spreading circle of electromagnetic waves and will thus be luminous. But as all of us who have toyed with magnets or charged balls well know, their forces (or any other forces for that matter), even when set in motion produce no luminance at all. It is inconceivable that you might constitute real luminance just by moving forces around!" Churchland's point is that the problem is that he would have to wave the magnet up and down something like 450 trillion times per second in order to see anything.


title: Chinese room

text: Stevan Harnad is critical of speed and complexity replies when they stray beyond addressing our intuitions. He writes "Some have made a cult of speed and timing, holding that, when accelerated to the right speed, the computational may make a phase transition into the mental. It should be clear that is not a counterargument but merely an "ad hoc" speculation (as is the view that it is all just a matter of ratcheting up to the right degree of 'complexity.')"


title: Chinese room

text: Searle argues that his critics are also relying on intuitions, however his opponents' intuitions have no empirical basis. He writes that, in order to consider the "system reply" as remotely plausible, a person must be "under the grip of an ideology". The system reply only makes sense (to Searle) if one assumes that any "system" can have consciousness, just by virtue of being a system with the right behavior and functional parts. This assumption, he argues, is not tenable given our experience of consciousness.


title: Chinese room

text: Several replies argue that Searle's argument is irrelevant because his assumptions about the mind and consciousness are faulty. Searle believes that human beings directly experience their consciousness, intentionality and the nature of the mind every day, and that this experience of consciousness is not open to question. He writes that we must "presuppose the reality and knowability of the mental." The replies below question whether Searle is justified in using his own experience of consciousness to determine that it is more than mechanical symbol processing. In particular, the other minds reply argues that we cannot use our experience of consciousness to answer questions about other minds (even the mind of a computer), the eliminative materialist reply argues that Searle's own personal consciousness does not "exist" in the sense that Searle thinks it does, and the epiphenoma replies question whether we can make any argument at all about something like consciousness which can not, by definition, be detected by any experiment.


title: Chinese room

text: The "Other Minds Reply" points out that Searle's argument is a version of the problem of other minds, applied to machines. There is no way we can determine if other people's subjective experience is the same as our own. We can only study their behavior (i.e., by giving them our own Turing test). Critics of Searle argue that he is holding the Chinese room to a higher standard than we would hold an ordinary person.


title: Chinese room

text: Nils Nilsson writes "If a program behaves "as if" it were multiplying, most of us would say that it is, in fact, multiplying. For all I know, Searle may only be behaving "as if" he were thinking deeply about these matters. But, even though I disagree with him, his simulation is pretty good, so I'm willing to credit him with real thought."


title: Chinese room

text: Alan Turing anticipated Searle's line of argument (which he called "The Argument from Consciousness") in 1950 and makes the other minds reply. He noted that people never consider the problem of other minds when dealing with each other. He writes that "instead of arguing continually over this point it is usual to have the polite convention that everyone thinks." The Turing test simply extends this "polite convention" to machines. He does not intend to solve the problem of other minds (for machines or people) and he does not think we need to.


title: Chinese room

text: Several philosophers argue that consciousness, as Searle describes it, does not exist. This position is sometimes referred to as eliminative materialism: the view that consciousness is not a concept that can "enjoy reduction" to a strictly mechanical (i.e. material) description, but rather is a concept that will be simply "eliminated" once the way the "material" brain works is fully understood, in just the same way as the concept of a demon has already been eliminated from science rather than enjoying reduction to a strictly mechanical description, and that our experience of consciousness is, as Daniel Dennett describes it, a "user illusion". Other mental properties, such as original intentionality (also called “meaning”, “content”, and “semantic character”), are also commonly regarded as special properties related to beliefs and other propositional attitudes. Eliminative materialism maintains that propositional attitudes such as beliefs and desires, among other intentional mental states that have content, do not exist. If eliminative materialism is the correct scientific account of human cognition then the assumption of the Chinese room argument that "minds have mental contents (semantics)" must be rejected.


title: Chinese room

text: Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig argue that if we accept Searle's description of intentionality, consciousness, and the mind, we are forced to accept that consciousness is epiphenomenal: that it "casts no shadow" i.e. is undetectable in the outside world. They argue that Searle must be mistaken about the "knowability of the mental", and in his belief that there are "causal properties" in our neurons that give rise to the mind. They point out that, by Searle's own description, these causal properties cannot be detected by anyone outside the mind, otherwise the Chinese Room could not pass the Turing test—the people outside would be able to tell there was not a Chinese speaker in the room by detecting their causal properties. Since they cannot detect causal properties, they cannot detect the existence of the mental. In short, Searle's "causal properties" and consciousness itself is undetectable, and anything that cannot be detected either does not exist or does not matter.


title: Chinese room

text: Mike Alder makes the same point, which he calls the "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword Reply". He argues that the entire argument is frivolous, because it is non-verificationist: not only is the distinction between "simulating" a mind and "having" a mind ill-defined, but it is also irrelevant because no experiments were, or even can be, proposed to distinguish between the two.


title: Chinese room

text: Daniel Dennett provides this extension to the "epiphenomena" argument. Suppose that, by some mutation, a human being is born that does not have Searle's "causal properties" but nevertheless acts exactly like a human being. (This sort of animal is called a "zombie" in thought experiments in the philosophy of mind). This new animal would reproduce just as any other human and eventually there would be more of these zombies. Natural selection would favor the zombies, since their design is (we could suppose) a bit simpler. Eventually the humans would die out. So therefore, if Searle is right, it is most likely that human beings (as we see them today) are actually "zombies", who nevertheless insist they are conscious. It is impossible to know whether we are all zombies or not. Even if we are all zombies, we would still believe that we are not.


title: Chinese room

text: Searle disagrees with this analysis and argues that "the study of the mind starts with such facts as that humans have beliefs, while thermostats, telephones, and adding machines don't ... what we wanted to know is what distinguishes the mind from thermostats and livers." He takes it as obvious that we can detect the presence of consciousness and dismisses these replies as being off the point.


title: Chinese room

text: Margaret Boden argued in her paper "Escaping from the Chinese Room" that even if the person in the room does not understand the Chinese, it does not mean there is no understanding in the room. The person in the room at least understands the rule book used to provide output responses.


title: Chinese room

text: The Chinese room argument is a central concept in Peter Watts's novels "Blindsight" and (to a lesser extent) "Echopraxia". Greg Egan illustrates the concept succinctly (and somewhat horrifically) in his 1990 short story "Learning to Be Me," in his Axiomatic collection.


title: Chinese room

text: The Chinese Room is also the name of a British independent video game development studio best known for working on experimental first-person games, such as "Everybody's Gone to the Rapture", or "Dear Esther".


title: Chinese room

text: In the 2016 video game "The Turing Test", the Chinese Room thought experiment is explained to the player by an AI.


title: Musket

text: A musket is a muzzle-loaded long gun that appeared as a smoothbore weapon in the early 16th century, at first as a heavier variant of the arquebus, capable of penetrating plate armour. By the mid-16th century, this type of musket gradually disappeared as the use of heavy armour declined, but "musket" continued as the generic term for smoothbore long guns until the mid-19th century. In turn, this style of musket was retired in the 19th century when rifled muskets (simply called rifles in modern terminology) using the Minié ball (invented by Claude-Étienne Minié in 1849) became common. The development of breech-loading firearms using self-contained cartridges (introduced by Casimir Lefaucheux in 1835) and the first reliable repeating rifles produced by Winchester Repeating Arms Company in 1860 also led to their demise. By the time that repeating rifles became common, they were known as simply "rifles", ending the era of the musket.


title: Musket

text: According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, firearms were often named after animals, and the word musket derived from the French word , which is a male sparrowhawk. An alternative theory is that derives from the 16th-century French , from the Italian , meaning the bolt of a crossbow. The Italian is a diminutive of , a fly.


title: Musket

text: The first recorded usage of the term "musket" or appeared in Europe in the year 1499. Evidence of the musket as a type of firearm does not appear until 1521 when it was used to describe a heavy arquebus capable of penetrating heavy armour. This version of the musket fell out of use after the mid-16th century with the decline of heavy armour; however, the term itself stuck around as a general descriptor for "shoulder arms" fire weapons into the 19th century. The differences between the arquebus and musket post-16th century are therefore not entirely clear, and the two have been used interchangeably on several occasions.


title: Musket

text: The Heavy arquebus was developed by the Spanish in response to heavily armored knights. After matchlock arquebuses became more widely utilized, thicker armor was produced, from in the 15 century to in the late 16 century. Armor that was thick required nearly three times as much energy to penetrate as did armor that was only thick. An arquebus wasn't powerful enough to take down an armored knight but a wall gun could. Spanish field commanders wanted to bring the firepower of a small wall gun onto the battlefield yet have it be as maneuverable as an arquebus. The solution was a bigger arquebus but the additional weight made it extremely difficult to support the barrel during aiming & firing; hence, the musket rest. During the siege of Parma in 1521, many Spanish soldiers reportedly used an "arquebus with rest", a weapon much larger and more powerful than the regular arquebus. It wasn't until the 1540's when this type of arquebus was given its own name. The lever style trigger commonly seen on arquebuses tended to “hook” things such as clothing, straps, cords, etc. The musket's trigger was redesigned to be a short rod which could be operated with a single finger. A guard was also added to not only protect the trigger, but, to prevent it from catching on clothing, etc. The musketeers were the first infantry to give up armor entirely. Musketeers began to take cover behind walls or in sunken lanes and sometimes acted as skirmishers to take advantage of their ranged weapons.


title: Musket

text: Muskets of the 16–19 centuries were accurate enough to hit a target of in diameter at a distance of . At the same distance, musket bullets could penetrate a steel bib about thick, or a wooden shield about thick. The maximum range of the bullet was . The speed of the bullets was between , and the kinetic energy was 3000–4000 J.


title: Musket

text: The heavy musket went out of favour around the same time the snaphance flintlock was invented in Europe, in 1550. The snaphance was followed by the "true" flintlock in the late 17th century. While the heavy variant of the arquebus died out due to the decline of heavy armour, the term "musket" itself stuck around as a general term for 'shoulder arms' fireweapons, replacing "arquebus," and remained until the 1800s. The differences between the arquebus and musket post-16th century are therefore not entirely clear, and the two have been used interchangeably on several occasions. Flintlocks are not usually associated with arquebuses.


title: Musket

text: The number of musketeers relative to pikemen increased partly because they were now more mobile than pikemen.


title: Musket

text: An intermediate between the arquebus and the musket was the caliver, a standardized "calibre" (spelled "caliber" in the US), which appeared in Europe around 1567–9.


title: Musket

text: Matchlock firearms were used in India by 1500, in Đại Việt by 1516, and in Southeast Asia by 1540. According to a Burmese source from the late 15th century, King Meng Khoum II would not dare attack the besieged town of Prome due to the defenders' use of cannon and small arms that were described as muskets, although these were probably early matchlock arquebuses or wall guns.


title: Musket

text: The Portuguese may have introduced muskets to Sri Lanka during their conquest of the coastline and lowlands in 1505, as they regularly used short barrelled matchlocks during combat. However, P.E.P. Deraniyagala points out that the Sinhalese term for gun, 'bondikula', matches the Arabic term for gun, 'bunduk'. Also, certain technical aspects of the early Sri Lankan matchlock were similar to the matchlocks used in the Middle East, thus forming the generally accepted theory that the musket was not entirely new to the island by the time the Portuguese came. In any case, soon native Sri Lankan kingdoms, most notably the Kingdom of Sitawaka and the Kandyan Kingdom, manufactured hundreds of Lankan muskets, with a unique bifurcated stock, longer barrel and smaller calibre, which made it more efficient in directing and using the energy of the gunpowder. These were mastered by native soldiers to the point where, according to the Portuguese chronicler, Queirós, they could "fire at night to put out a match" and "by day at 60 paces would sever a knife with four or five bullets" and "send as many on the same spot in the target."


title: Musket

text: Arquebuses were imported by the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) at an uncertain point, but the Ming only began fielding matchlocks in 1548. The Chinese used the term "bird-gun" to refer to arquebuses and Turkish arquebuses may have reached China before Portuguese ones. In Zhao Shizhen's book of 1598 AD, the "Shenqipu", there were illustrations of Ottoman Turkish musketmen with detailed illustrations of their muskets, alongside European musketeers with detailed illustrations of their muskets. There was also illustration and description of how the Chinese had adopted the Ottoman kneeling position in firing while using European-made muskets, though Zhao Shizhen described the Turkish muskets as being superior to the European muskets. The "Wu Pei Chih" (1621) later described Turkish muskets that used a rack-and-pinion mechanism, which was not known to have been used in any European or Chinese firearms at the time.


title: Musket

text: Despite initial reluctance, the Safavid Empire of Persia rapidly acquired the art of making and using handguns. A Venetian envoy, Vincenzo di Alessandri, in a report presented to the Council of Ten on 24 September 1572, observed:


title: Musket

text: In Japan, arquebuses were introduced by Portuguese merchantmen from the region of Alentejo in 1543 and by the 1560s were being mass-produced locally. By the end of the 16th century, the production of firearms in Japan reached enormous proportions, which allowed for a successful military operation in Korea during the Japanese invasions of Korea. Korean chief state councillor Yu Song-nyong noted the clear superiority of the Japanese musketeers over the Korean archers:


title: Musket

text: In Korea, the Joseon dynasty underwent a devastating war with newly unified Japan that lasted from 1592 to 1598. The shock of this encounter spurred the court to undergo a process of military strengthening. One of the core elements of military strengthening was to adopt the musket. According to reformers, "In recent times in China they did not have muskets; they first learned about them from the Wokou pirates in Zhejiang Province. Qi Jiguang trained troops in their use for several years until they [muskets] became one of the skills of the Chinese, who subsequently used them to defeat the Japanese." By 1607 Korean musketeers had been trained in the fashion which Qi Jiguang prescribed, and a drill manual had been produced based on the Chinese leader's "Jixiao Xinshu". Of the volley fire, the manual says that "every musketeer squad should either divide into two musketeers per layer or one and deliver fire in five volleys or in ten." Another Korean manual produced in 1649 describes a similar process: "When the enemy approaches to within a hundred paces, a signal gun is fired and a conch is blown, at which the soldiers stand. Then a gong is sounded, the conch stops blowing, and the heavenly swan [a double-reed horn] is sounded, at which the musketeers fire in concert, either all at once or in five volleys (齊放一次盡擧或分五擧)." This training method proved to be quite formidable in the 1619 Battle of Sarhu, in which 10,000 Korean musketeers managed to kill many Manchus before their allies surrendered. While Korea went on to lose both wars against the Manchu invasions of 1627 and 1636, their musketeers were well respected by Manchu leaders. It was the first Qing emperor Hong Taiji who wrote: "The Koreans are incapable on horseback but do not transgress the principles of the military arts. They excel at infantry fighting, especially in musketeer tactics."


title: Musket

text: Afterwards, the Qing dynasty requested Joseon to aid in their border conflict with Russia. In 1654, 370 Russians engaged a 1,000-man Qing-Joseon force at the mouth of the Songhua River and were defeated by Joseon musketeers. In 1658, 500 Russians engaged a 1,400-strong Qing-Joseon force and were defeated again by Joseon musketeers. Under the Three Branch System, similar to the Spanish Tercio, Joseon organized their army under firearm troops (artillery and musketeers), archers, and pikemen or swordsmen. The percentage of firearms in the Joseon army rose dramatically as a result of the shorter training period for firearms. In addition, the sulphur mines discovered in Jinsan reduced the expense of producing gunpowder. Under the reign of Sukjong of Joseon (1700s), 76.4% of the local standing army in Chungcheong were musketeers. Under the reign of King Yeongjo, Yoon Pil-Un, Commander of the Sua-chung, improved on firearms with the Chunbochong (천보총), which had a greater range of fire than the existing ones. Its usage is thought to have been similar to the Afghanistani Jezail or American Kentucky Rifle.


title: Musket

text: During the Musket Wars period in New Zealand, between 1805 and 1843, at least 500 conflicts took place between various Māori tribes – often using trade muskets in addition to traditional Māori weapons. The muskets were initially cheap Birmingham muskets designed for the use of coarse grain black powder. Maori favoured the shorter barrel versions. Some tribes took advantage of runaway sailors and escaped convicts to expand their understanding of muskets. Early missionaries – one of whom was a trained gunsmith – refused to help Māori repair muskets. Later, common practice was to enlarge the percussion hole and to hold progressively smaller lead balls between the fingers so that muskets could fire several shots without having to remove fouling. Likewise, Māori resorted to thumping the butt of the musket on the ground to settle the ball instead of using a ramrod. Māori favoured the use of the double barrel shot gun ("Tuparra" – two barrel) during fighting often using women to reload the weapons when fighting from a "Pā" (fortified village or hillfort). They often resorted to using nails, stones or anything convenient as "shot". From the 1850s, Māori were able to obtain superior military style muskets with greater range. One of the authors was a "Pakeha" (European) who lived amongst Māori, spoke the language fluently, had a Māori wife and took part in many intertribal conflicts as a warrior.


title: Musket

text: The musket was a smoothbore firearm and lacked rifling grooves that would have spun the bullet in such a way as to increase its accuracy. The last contact with the musket barrel gives the ball a spin around an axis at right angles to the direction of flight. The aerodynamics result in the ball veering off in a random direction from the aiming point. The practice of rifling, putting grooves in the barrel of a weapon, causing the projectile to spin on the same axis as the line of flight, prevented this veering off from the aiming point. Rifles already existed in Europe by the late 15th century, but they were primarily used as sporting weapons and had little presence in warfare. The problem with rifles was the tendency for powder fouling to accumulate in the rifling, making the piece more difficult to load with each shot. Eventually, the weapon could not be loaded until the bore was wiped clean. For this reason, smoothbore muskets remained the primary firearm of most armies until the mid-19th century. It wasn't until 1611 that rifles started seeing some limited usage in warfare by Denmark. Around 1750, rifles began to be used by skirmishers of Frederick the Great, recruited in 1744 from a Jäger unit of game-keepers and foresters, but the rifle's slow rate of fire still restricted their usage.


title: Musket

text: The invention of the Minié ball in 1849 solved both major problems of muzzle-loading rifles. Rifled muskets of the mid-19th century, like the Springfield Model 1861 which dealt heavy casualties at the Battle of Four Lakes, were significantly more accurate, with the ability to hit a man sized target at a distance of or more. The smoothbore musket generally allowed no more than with any accuracy.


title: Musket

text: The Crimean War (1853–1856) saw the first widespread use of the rifled musket for the common infantryman and by the time of the American Civil War (1861-1865) most infantry were equipped with the rifled musket. These were far more accurate than smoothbore muskets and had a far longer range, while preserving the musket's comparatively faster reloading rate. Their use led to a decline in the use of massed attacking formations, as these formations were too vulnerable to the accurate, long-range fire a rifle could produce. In particular, attacking troops were within range of the defenders for a longer period of time, and the defenders could also fire at them more quickly than before. As a result, while 18th century attackers would only be within range of the defenders' weapons for the time it would take to fire a few shots, late 19th century attackers might suffer dozens of volleys before they drew close to the defenders, with correspondingly high casualty rates. However, the use of massed attacks on fortified positions did not vanish overnight, and as a result, major wars of the late 19th century and early 20th century tended to produce very high casualty figures.


title: Musket

text: Each nation developed its own loading and firing training Procedere. In the 16 century, on the European continent, the process for a matchlock was done in the following way:


title: Musket

text: The process in England at that time was different in that the main charge was loaded prior to priming the pan. Priming the pan before loading the main charge makes good practice, for should an errant ember from the glowing end of the match cord ignite the priming powder before the cover is closed, the result would merely be a flash in the pan. Were one to load the main charge before priming the pan, then the damage provoked by the former scenario could be catastrophic.


title: Musket

text: In the 18 century, as typified by the flintlock equiped English Brown Bess musket, loading and firing was done in the following way:


title: Musket

text: This process was drilled into troops until they could complete the procedure upon hearing a single command of ""prime and load"". No additional verbal orders were given until the musket was loaded, and the option was either to give the soldiers the command ""Make Ready"", or to hold the musket for movement with the command of ""Shoulder your firelock"". The main advantage of the British Army was that the infantry soldier trained at this procedure almost every day. A properly trained group of regular infantry soldiers was able to load and fire four rounds per minute. A crack infantry company could load and fire five rounds in a minute.


title: Musket

text: Many soldiers preferred to reduce the standard musket reloading procedures in order to increase the speed of fire. This statement is from Thomas Anburey who served as a Lt in Burgoyne's army:


title: Musket

text: "Here I cannot help observing to you, whether it proceeded from an idea of self-preservation, or natural instinct, but the soldiers greatly improved the mode they were taught in, as to expedition. For as soon as they had primed their pieces and put the cartridge into the barrel, instead of ramming it down with their rods, they struck the butt end of the piece upon the ground, and bringing it to the present, fired it off".


title: Musket

text: As muskets became the default weapon of armies, the slow reloading time became an increasing problem. The difficulty of reloading—and thus the time needed to do it—was diminished by making the musket ball much smaller than the internal diameter of the barrel, so as the interior of the barrel became dirty from soot from previously fired rounds, the musket ball from the next shot could still be easily rammed. In order to keep the ball in place once the weapon was loaded, it would be partially wrapped in a small piece of cloth. However, the smaller ball could move within the barrel as the musket was fired, decreasing the accuracy of musket fire (it was complained that it took a man's weight in lead musket balls to kill him).


title: Musket

text: The development of volley fire – by the Ottomans, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Dutch – made muskets more feasible for widespread adoption by the military. The volley fire technique transformed soldiers carrying firearms into organized firing squads with each row of soldiers firing in turn and reloading in a systematic fashion. Volley fire was implemented with cannons as early as 1388 by Ming artillerists, but volley fire with matchlocks was not implemented until 1526 when the Ottoman Janissaries utilized it during the Battle of Mohács. The matchlock volley fire technique was next seen in mid 16th century China as pioneered by Qi Jiguang and in late 16th century Japan. Qi Jiguang elaborates on his volley fire technique in the "Jixiao Xinshu":


title: Musket

text: Frederick Lewis Taylor claims that a kneeling volley fire may have been employed by Prospero Colonna's arquebusiers as early as the Battle of Bicocca (1522). However this has been called into question by Tonio Andrade who believes this is an over interpretation as well as mis-citation of a passage by Charles Oman suggesting that the Spanish arquebusiers kneeled to reload, when in fact Oman never made such a claim. European gunners might have implemented the volley fire to some extent since at least 1579 when the Englishman Thomas Digges suggested that musketeers should, "after the old Romane manner make three or four several fronts, with convenient spaces for the first to retire and unite himselfe with the second, and both these if occasion so require, with the third; the shot [musketeers] having their convenient lanes continually during the fight to discharge their peces." The Spanish too displayed some awareness of the volley technique. Martín de Eguiluz described it in the military manual, "Milicia, Discurso y Regla Militar", dating to 1586: "Start with three files of five soldiers each, separated one from the other by fifteen paces, and they should comport themselves not with fury but with calm skillfulness [con reposo diestramente] such that when the first file has finished shooting they make space for the next (which is coming up to shoot) without turning face, countermarching [contrapassando] to the left but showing the enemy only the side of their bodies, which is the narrowest of the body, and [taking their place at the rear] about one to three steps behind, with five or six pellets in their mouths, and two lighted matchlock fuses … and they load [their pieces] promptly … and return to shoot when it's their turn again." Most historians, including Geoffrey Parker, have ignored Eguiluz, and have erroneously attributed the invention of the countermarch to Maurice of Nassau, although the publication of the "Milicia, Discurso y Regla Militar" antedates Maurice's first letter on the subject by two years. Regardless, it is clear that the concept of volley fire had existed in Europe for quite some time during the 16th century, but it was in the Netherlands during the 1590s that the musketry volley really took off. The key to this development was William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg who in 1594 described the technique in a letter to his cousin:


title: Musket

text: In the 18th century, regular light infantry began to emerge. In contrast to the front-line infantry, they fought in the loose formation, used natural shelters and terrain folds. In addition, they were better prepared to target single targets. This type of troops was designed to fight against irregular enemy troops, such as militia, guerrillas and natives. But at the beginning of the 19th century, the number of light infantry is increasing dramatically. In the French army, light infantry accounted for 25% of the infantry. In the Russian Army, 50 light infantry regiments and one company in each battalion were formed, which accounted for about 40% of light infantry in the entire infantry.


title: Musket

text: In the 19th century, a new tactic was devised by the French during the French Revolutionary Wars. This was the '"colonne d'attaque"', or attack column, consisting of one regiment up to two brigades of infantry. Instead of advancing slowly all across the battlefield in line formations, the French infantry were brought forward in such columns, preceded by masses of skirmishers to cover and mask their advance. The column would then normally deploy into line right before engaging the enemy with either fire or bayonet. This allowed the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic infantry a much greater degree of mobility compared to their "Ancien Régime" opponents, and also allowed much closer cooperation of infantry with cavalry and artillery, which were free to move in between the infantry columns of the former rather than being trapped in between the linear formation of the latter. The "colonne d'attaque" was henceforth adopted by all European armies during and after the Napoleonic Wars. While some British historians, such as Sir Charles Oman, have postulated that it was the standard French tactic to charge enemy lines of infantry head on with their columns, relying on the morale effect of the huge column, and hence were often beaten off by the devastating firepower of the redcoats, more current research into the subject has revealed that such occasions were far from the norm, and that the French normally tried deploying into lines before combat as well.


title: Musket

text: Locks came in many different varieties as different innovations evolved over the years. The first truly viable and reliable ignition system was the matchlock, originally known as a "serpentine". It wasn't until the wheel lock was developed early in the 16 century that the term "lock" was applied to the ignition mechanism. That's because the wheel lock required the skills of a locksmith to manufacture it but it didn't replace the matchlock as it was very expensive to make. The first mechanism to utilize a piece of flint striking a steel frizzen to create sparks that ignited powder was the snaplock. Some ten-years later, the snaphaunce and the miquelet were developed about the same time but independently. Somewhere during this time the doglock appeared. These transitory mechanisms featured various technical innovations which were eventually combined into the familiar flintlock mechanism we see throughout the 17 and 18 centuries. In the latter half of the 18 century, several improvements were added to the flintlock mechanism. In 1750, a detent was added to prevent the sear from catching in the half-cock notch. A roller bearing was introduced in 1770 to reduce friction and increase sparks. In 1780, waterproof pans were added.


title: Musket

text: The early 19 century saw the development of the percussion lock. In some parts of the world, such as China and Japan, the flintlock mechanism never caught on and they continued using matchlocks until the 19 century when percussion locks were introduced.


title: Musket

text: The Minié ball, which despite its name was actually bullet-shaped and not ball-shaped, was developed in the 1840s. The Minié ball had an expanding skirt which was intended to be used with rifled barrels, leading to what was called the rifled musket, which came into widespread use in the mid-19th century. The Minié ball was small enough in diameter that it could be loaded as quickly as a round ball, even with a barrel that had been fouled with black powder residue after firing many shots, and the expanding skirt of the Minié ball meant that it would still form a tight fit with the barrel and impart a good spin into the round when fired. This gave the rifled musket an effective range of several hundred yards, which was a significant improvement over the smooth bore musket. For example, combat ranges of 300 yards were achievable using the rifled muskets of the American Civil War.


title: Musket

text: Musketeers often used paper cartridges, which served a purpose similar to that of modern metallic cartridges in combining bullet and powder charge. A musket cartridge consisted of a pre-measured amount of black powder and ammunition such as a round ball, Nessler ball or Minié ball all wrapped up in paper. Cartridges would then be placed in a cartridge box, which would typically be worn on the musketeer's belt during a battle. Unlike a modern cartridge, this paper cartridge was not simply loaded into the weapon and fired. Instead, the musketeer would tear open the paper (usually with his teeth), pour some of the powder into the pan and the rest into the barrel, follow it with the ammunition (and the paper as wadding if not using a Minié ball), then use the ramrod as normal to push it all into the barrel. While not as fast as loading a modern cartridge, this method did significantly speed up the loading process since the pre-measured charges meant that the musketeer did not have to carefully measure out the black powder with every shot.


title: Musket

text: Some ramrods were equipped with threaded ends, allowing different attachments to be used. One of the more common attachments was a ball screw or ball puller, which was a screw that could be screwed into the lead ball to remove it if it had become jammed in the barrel, similar to the way that a corkscrew is used to remove a wine cork. Another attachment was called a worm, which was used to clear debris from the barrel, such as paper wadding that had not been expelled. Some worm designs were sturdy enough that they could be used to remove stuck ammunition. The worm could also be used with a small piece of cloth for cleaning. A variation on the worm called the "screw and wiper" combined the typical design of a worm with a ball puller's screw.


title: Flags of Europe

text: An incomplete list of flags representing intra-European international and supranational organisations, which omits intercontinental organisations such as the United Nations:


title: Flags of Europe

text: Many states have separate civil and state versions of their flags; the state flags (listed) include the state arms, while the civil versions don't. See Flags of German states.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio, also known as ham radio, is the use of the radio frequency spectrum for purposes of non-commercial exchange of messages, wireless experimentation, self-training, private recreation, radiosport, contesting, and emergency communications. The term "amateur" is used to specify "a duly authorized person interested in radioelectric practice with a purely personal aim and without pecuniary interest;" (either direct monetary or other similar reward) and to differentiate it from commercial broadcasting, public safety (such as police and fire), or professional two-way radio services (such as maritime, aviation, taxis, etc.).


title: Amateur radio

text: The amateur radio service ("amateur service" and "amateur-satellite service") is established by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) through the Radio Regulations. National governments regulate technical and operational characteristics of transmissions and issue individual station licenses with a unique identifying call sign, which must be used in all transmissions. Amateur operators must hold an amateur radio license which is obtained by passing a government test demonstrating adequate technical radio knowledge and legal knowledge of the host government's radio regulations.


title: Amateur radio

text: Radio amateurs are limited to a small set of frequency bands, the amateur radio bands, allocated throughout the radio spectrum, but within these bands are allowed to transmit on any frequency using a variety of voice, text, image, and data communications modes. This enables communication across a city, region, country, continent, the world, or even into space. In many countries, amateur radio operators may also send, receive, or relay radio communications between computers or transceivers connected to secure virtual private networks on the Internet.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio is officially represented and coordinated by the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU), which is organized in three regions and has as its members the national amateur radio societies which exist in most countries. According to an estimate made in 2011 by the American Radio Relay League, two million people throughout the world are regularly involved with amateur radio. About 830,000 amateur radio stations are located in IARU Region 2 (the Americas) followed by IARU Region 3 (South and East Asia and the Pacific Ocean) with about 750,000 stations. A significantly smaller number, about 400,000, are located in IARU Region 1 (Europe, Middle East, CIS, Africa).


title: Amateur radio

text: The origins of amateur radio can be traced to the late 19th century, but amateur radio as practiced today began in the early 20th century. The "First Annual Official Wireless Blue Book of the Wireless Association of America", produced in 1909, contains a list of amateur radio stations. This radio callbook lists wireless telegraph stations in Canada and the United States, including 89 amateur radio stations. As with radio in general, amateur radio was associated with various amateur experimenters and hobbyists. Amateur radio enthusiasts have significantly contributed to science, engineering, industry, and social services. Research by amateur operators has founded new industries, built economies, empowered nations, and saved lives in times of emergency. Ham radio can also be used in the classroom to teach English, map skills, geography, math, science, and computer skills.


title: Amateur radio

text: The term "ham" was first a pejorative term used in professional wired telegraphy during the 19th century, to mock operators with poor Morse code-sending skills ("ham-fisted"). This term continued to be used after the invention of radio and the proliferation of amateur experimentation with wireless telegraphy; among land- and sea-based professional radio operators, "ham" amateurs were considered a nuisance. The use of "ham" meaning "amateurish or unskilled" survives today sparsely in other disciplines (e.g. "ham actor").


title: Amateur radio

text: The amateur radio community subsequently began to reclaim the word as a label of pride, and by the mid-20th century it had lost its pejorative meaning. Although not an acronym, it is often mistakenly written as a backronym, with "HAM" in capital letters.


title: Amateur radio

text: The many facets of amateur radio attract practitioners with a wide range of interests. Many amateurs begin with a fascination with radio communication and then combine other personal interests to make pursuit of the hobby rewarding. Some of the focal areas amateurs pursue include radio contesting, radio propagation study, public service communication, technical experimentation, and computer networking.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio operators use various modes of transmission to communicate. The two most common modes for voice transmissions are frequency modulation (FM) and single sideband (SSB). FM offers high quality audio signals, while SSB is better at long-distance communication when bandwidth is restricted.


title: Amateur radio

text: Radiotelegraphy using Morse code, also known as "CW" from "continuous wave", is the wireless extension of landline (wired) telegraphy developed by Samuel Morse and dates to the earliest days of radio. Although computer-based (digital) modes and methods have largely replaced CW for commercial and military applications, many amateur radio operators still enjoy using the CW mode—particularly on the shortwave bands and for experimental work, such as Earth–Moon–Earth communication, because of its inherent signal-to-noise ratio advantages. Morse, using internationally agreed message encodings such as the Q code, enables communication between amateurs who speak different languages. It is also popular with homebrewers and in particular with "QRP" or very-low-power enthusiasts, as CW-only transmitters are simpler to construct, and the human ear-brain signal processing system can pull weak CW signals out of the noise where voice signals would be totally inaudible. A similar "legacy" mode popular with home constructors is amplitude modulation (AM), pursued by many vintage amateur radio enthusiasts and aficionados of vacuum tube technology.


title: Amateur radio

text: Demonstrating a proficiency in Morse code was for many years a requirement to obtain an amateur license to transmit on frequencies below 30 MHz. Following changes in international regulations in 2003, countries are no longer required to demand proficiency. The United States Federal Communications Commission, for example, phased out this requirement for all license classes on 23 February 2007.


title: Amateur radio

text: Modern personal computers have encouraged the use of digital modes such as radioteletype (RTTY) which previously required cumbersome mechanical equipment. Hams led the development of packet radio in the 1970s, which has employed protocols such as AX.25 and TCP/IP. Specialized digital modes such as PSK31 allow real-time, low-power communications on the shortwave bands but has been losing favor in place of newer digital modes such as FT8.


title: Amateur radio

text: Radio over IP, or RoIP, is similar to Voice over IP (VoIP), but augments two-way radio communications rather than telephone calls. EchoLink using VoIP technology has enabled amateurs to communicate through local Internet-connected repeaters and radio nodes, while IRLP has allowed the linking of repeaters to provide greater coverage area.


title: Amateur radio

text: Automatic link establishment (ALE) has enabled continuous amateur radio networks to operate on the high frequency bands with global coverage. Other modes, such as FSK441 using software such as WSJT, are used for weak signal modes including meteor scatter and moonbounce communications.


title: Amateur radio

text: Fast scan amateur television has gained popularity as hobbyists adapt inexpensive consumer video electronics like camcorders and video cards in PCs. Because of the wide bandwidth and stable signals required, amateur television is typically found in the 70 cm (420–450 MHz) wavelength range, though there is also limited use on 33 cm (902–928 MHz), 23 cm (1240–1300 MHz) and shorter. These requirements also effectively limit the signal range to between 20 and 60 miles (30–100 km).


title: Amateur radio

text: Linked repeater systems, however, can allow transmissions of VHF and higher frequencies across hundreds of miles. Repeaters are usually located on heights of land or tall structures and allow operators to communicate over hundreds of miles using hand-held or mobile transceivers. Repeaters can also be linked together by using other amateur radio bands, landline, or the Internet.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio satellites can be accessed, some using a hand-held transceiver (HT), even, at times, using the factory "rubber duck" antenna. Hams also use the moon, the aurora borealis, and the ionized trails of meteors as reflectors of radio waves. Hams can also contact the International Space Station (ISS) because many astronauts are licensed as amateur radio operators.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio operators use their amateur radio station to make contacts with individual hams as well as participating in round table discussion groups or "rag chew sessions" on the air. Some join in regularly scheduled on-air meetings with other amateur radio operators, called "nets" (as in "networks"), which are moderated by a station referred to as "Net Control". Nets can allow operators to learn procedures for emergencies, be an informal round table, or cover specific interests shared by a group.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio operators, using battery- or generator-powered equipment, often provide essential communications services when regular channels are unavailable due to natural disaster or other disruptive events .


title: Amateur radio

text: Many amateur radio operators participate in radio contests, during which an individual or team of operators typically seek to contact and exchange information with as many other amateur radio stations as possible in a given period of time. In addition to contests, a number of Amateur radio operating award schemes exist, sometimes suffixed with "on the Air", such as Summits on the Air, Islands on the Air, Worked All States and Jamboree on the Air.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio operators may also act as citizen scientists for propagation research and atmospheric science.


title: Amateur radio

text: Radio transmission permits are closely controlled by nations' governments because radio waves propagate beyond national boundaries, and therefore radio is of international concern.


title: Amateur radio

text: Both the requirements for and privileges granted to a licensee vary from country to country, but generally follow the international regulations and standards established by the International Telecommunication Union and World Radio Conferences.


title: Amateur radio

text: All countries that license citizens to use amateur radio require operators to display knowledge and understanding of key concepts, usually by passing an exam. The licenses grant hams the privilege to operate in larger segments of the radio frequency spectrum, with a wider variety of communication techniques, and with higher power levels relative to unlicensed personal radio services (such as CB radio, FRS, and PMR446), which require type-approved equipment restricted in mode, range, and power.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur licensing is a routine civil administrative matter in many countries. Amateurs therein must pass an examination to demonstrate technical knowledge, operating competence, and awareness of legal and regulatory requirements, in order to avoid interfering with other amateurs and other radio services. A series of exams are often available, each progressively more challenging and granting more privileges: greater frequency availability, higher power output, permitted experimentation, and, in some countries, distinctive call signs. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have begun requiring a practical assessment in addition to the written exams in order to obtain a beginner's license, which they call a Foundation License.


title: Amateur radio

text: In most countries, an operator will be assigned a call sign with their license. In some countries, a separate "station license" is required for any station used by an amateur radio operator. Amateur radio licenses may also be granted to organizations or clubs. In some countries, hams were allowed to operate only club stations.


title: Amateur radio

text: An amateur radio license is valid only in the country in which it is issued or in another country that has a reciprocal licensing agreement with the issuing country. Some countries, such as Syria and Cuba, restrict operation by foreigners to club stations only.


title: Amateur radio

text: In some countries, an amateur radio license is necessary in order to purchase or possess amateur radio equipment.


title: Amateur radio

text: Amateur radio licensing in the United States exemplifies the way in which some countries award different levels of amateur radio licenses based on technical knowledge: three sequential levels of licensing exams (Technician Class, General Class, and Amateur Extra Class) are currently offered, which allow operators who pass them access to larger portions of the Amateur Radio spectrum and more desirable (shorter) call signs. An exam, authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is required for all levels of the Amateur Radio license. These exams are administered by Volunteer Examiners, accredited by the FCC-recognized Volunteer Examiner Coordinator (VEC) system. The Technician Class and General Class exams consist of 35 multiple-choice questions, drawn randomly from a pool of at least 350. To pass, 26 of the 35 questions must be answered correctly. The Extra Class exam has 50 multiple choice questions (drawn randomly from a pool of at least 500), 37 of which must be answered correctly. The tests cover regulations, customs, and technical knowledge, such as FCC provisions, operating practices, advanced electronics theory, radio equipment design, and safety. Morse Code is no longer tested in the U.S. Once the exam is passed, the FCC issues an Amateur Radio license which is valid for ten years. Studying for the exam is made easier because the entire question pools for all license classes are posted in advance. The question pools are updated every four years by the National Conference of VECs.


title: Amateur radio

text: Prospective amateur radio operators are examined on understanding of the key concepts of electronics, radio equipment, antennas, radio propagation, RF safety, and the radio regulations of the government granting the license. These examinations are sets of questions typically posed in either a short answer or multiple-choice format. Examinations can be administered by bureaucrats, non-paid certified examiners, or previously licensed amateur radio operators.


title: Amateur radio

text: The ease with which an individual can acquire an amateur radio license varies from country to country. In some countries, examinations may be offered only once or twice a year in the national capital and can be inordinately bureaucratic (for example in India) or challenging because some amateurs must undergo difficult security approval (as in Iran). Currently only Yemen and North Korea do not issue amateur radio licenses to their citizens, although in both cases a limited number of foreign visitors have been permitted to obtain amateur licenses in the past decade. Some developing countries, especially those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, require the payment of annual license fees that can be prohibitively expensive for most of their citizens. A few small countries may not have a national licensing process and may instead require prospective amateur radio operators to take the licensing examinations of a foreign country. In countries with the largest numbers of amateur radio licensees, such as Japan, the United States, Thailand, Canada, and most of the countries in Europe, there are frequent license examinations opportunities in major cities.


title: Amateur radio

text: Granting a separate license to a club or organization generally requires that an individual with a current and valid amateur radio license who is in good standing with the telecommunications authority assumes responsibility for any operations conducted under the club license or club call sign. A few countries may issue special licenses to novices or beginners that do not assign the individual a call sign but instead require the newly licensed individual to operate from stations licensed to a club or organization for a period of time before a higher class of license can be acquired.


title: Amateur radio

text: A reciprocal licensing agreement between two countries allows bearers of an amateur radio license in one country under certain conditions to legally operate an amateur radio station in the other country without having to obtain an amateur radio license from the country being visited, or the bearer of a valid license in one country can receive a separate license and a call sign in another country, both of which have a mutually-agreed reciprocal licensing approvals. Reciprocal licensing requirements vary from country to country. Some countries have bilateral or multilateral reciprocal operating agreements allowing hams to operate within their borders with a single set of requirements. Some countries lack reciprocal licensing systems. Others use international bodies such as the Organization of American States to facilitate licensing reciprocity.


title: Amateur radio

text: When traveling abroad, visiting amateur operators must follow the rules of the country in which they wish to operate. Some countries have reciprocal international operating agreements allowing hams from other countries to operate within their borders with just their home country license. Other host countries require that the visiting ham apply for a formal permit, or even a new host country-issued license, in advance.


title: Amateur radio

text: The reciprocal recognition of licenses frequently not only depends on the involved licensing authorities, but also on the nationality of the bearer. As an example, in the US, foreign licenses are recognized only if the bearer does not have US citizenship and holds no US license (which may differ in terms of operating privileges and restrictions). Conversely, a US citizen may operate under reciprocal agreements in Canada, but not a non-US citizen holding a US license.


title: Amateur radio

text: Many people start their involvement in amateur radio on social media or by finding a local club. Clubs often provide information about licensing, local operating practices, and technical advice. Newcomers also often study independently by purchasing books or other materials, sometimes with the help of a mentor, teacher, or friend. Established amateurs who help newcomers are often referred to as "Elmers", as coined by Rodney Newkirk, W9BRD, within the ham community. In addition, many countries have national amateur radio societies which encourage newcomers and work with government communications regulation authorities for the benefit of all radio amateurs. The oldest of these societies is the Wireless Institute of Australia, formed in 1910; other notable societies are the Radio Society of Great Britain, the American Radio Relay League, Radio Amateurs of Canada, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, the New Zealand Association of Radio Transmitters and South African Radio League. ("See ")


title: Amateur radio

text: In some countries, the call sign assigned to the station must always be used, whereas in other countries, the call sign of either the operator or the station may be used.


title: Amateur radio

text: In certain jurisdictions, an operator may also select a "vanity" call sign although these must also conform to the issuing government's allocation and structure used for Amateur Radio call signs. Some jurisdictions require a fee to obtain such a vanity call sign; in others, such as the UK, a fee is not required and the vanity call sign may be selected when the license is applied for. The FCC in the U.S. discontinued its fee for vanity call sign applications in September 2015.


title: Amateur radio

text: Call sign structure as prescribed by the ITU consists of three parts which break down as follows, using the call sign ZS1NAT as an example:


title: Amateur radio

text: Many countries do not follow the ITU convention for the numeral. In the United Kingdom the original calls G0xxx, G2xxx, G3xxx, G4xxx, were Full (A) License holders along with the last M0xxx full call signs issued by the City & Guilds examination authority in December 2003. Additional Full Licenses were originally granted to (B) Licensees with G1xxx, G6xxx, G7xxx, G8xxx and 1991 onward with M1xxx call signs. The newer three-level Intermediate License holders are assigned 2E0xxx and 2E1xxx, and the basic Foundation License holders are granted call signs M3xxx, M6xxx or M7xxx.


title: Amateur radio

text: Instead of using numbers, in the UK the second letter after the initial ‘G’ or 'M' identifies the station's location; for example, a call sign G7OOE becomes GM7OOE and M0RDM becomes MM0RDM when that license holder is operating a station in Scotland. Prefix "GM" & "MM" are Scotland, "GW" & "MW" are Wales, "GI" & "MI" are Northern Ireland, "GD" & "MD" are the Isle of Man, "GJ" & "MJ" are Jersey and "GU" & "MU" are Guernsey. Intermediate licence call signs are slightly different. They begin 2#0 and 2#1 where the # is replaced with the country letters as above. For example "2M0" and "2M1" are Scotland, "2W0" and "2W1" are Wales and so on. The exception however is for England. The letter "E" "is" used, but only in intermediate-level call signs. For example "2E0" & "2E1" are used whereas the call signs beginning G or M for foundation and full licensees never use the "E".


title: Amateur radio

text: In the United States, for non-vanity licenses, the numeral indicates the geographical district the holder resided in when the license was first issued. Prior to 1978, US hams were required to obtain a new call sign if they moved out of their geographic district.


title: Amateur radio

text: In Canada, call signs start with VA, VE, VY, VO, and CY. Call signs starting with 'V' end with a number after to indicate the political region; prefix CY indicates geographic islands. Prefix VA1 or VE1 is Nova Scotia, VA2VE2 is Quebec, VA3VE3 is Ontario, VA4VE4 is Manitoba, VA5VE5 is Saskatchewan, VA6VE6 is Alberta, VA7VE7 is British Columbia, VE8 is the Northwest Territories, VE9 is New Brunswick, VY0 is Nunavut, VY1 is Yukon, VY2 is Prince Edward Island, VO1 is Newfoundland, and VO2 is Labrador. CY is for amateurs operating from Sable Island (CY0) or St. Paul Island (CY9), both of which require Coast Guard permission to access. The last two or three letters of the call signs are typically the operator's choice (upon completing the licensing test, the ham writes three most-preferred options). Two-letter call sign suffixes require a ham to have already been licensed for 5 years. Call signs in Canada can be requested with a fee.


title: Amateur radio

text: Also, for smaller geopolitical entities, the numeral may be part of the country identification. For example, VP2xxx is in the British West Indies, which is subdivided into VP2Exx Anguilla, VP2Mxx Montserrat, and VP2Vxx British Virgin Islands. VP5xxx is in the Turks and Caicos Islands, VP6xxx is on Pitcairn Island, VP8xxx is in the Falklands, and VP9xxx is in Bermuda.


title: Amateur radio

text: Online callbooks or call sign databases can be browsed or searched to find out who holds a specific call sign. An example of an online callbook is QRZ.com. Non-exhaustive lists of famous people who hold or have held amateur radio call signs have also been compiled and published.


title: Amateur radio

text: Many jurisdictions (but not in the UK & Europe) may issue specialty vehicle registration plates to licensed amateur radio operators often in order to facilitate their movement during an emergency. The fees for application and renewal are usually less than the standard rate for specialty plates.