Do inanimate technologies think? Do they genuinely have a consciousness and real knowledge or are they simply machines? Are they made up of just algorithms and math medical equations? This is the argument many philosophers and scientists have been arguing over for years. John Searle, who is a professor at University of California, Berkeley, believes that not just Watson, but all higher-level information holding technologies do not have an active consciousness. They are only products of the human brain’s ideas and programs. Even though many esteemed mechanisms may demonstrate extraordinary knowledge even beyond human recognition, I agree with Searle. Computers do not have original thought. They are the result of high cognitive thinking …show more content…
In a February two thousand and eleven game, Watson competed against some of Jeopardy’s brightest stars Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings. Both Mr. Rutter and Jennings lost miserably against the super computer. Watson’s performance was almost flawless although it did make a few un-slightly mistakes. Anyway, the performance was superb, and was greeted as a scientific breakthrough of artificial intelligence in computers and intellectual technologies. Many people, including Jennings and Rutter stated that they were one of the first “knowledge-industry workers put out of work by the new generation of thinking …show more content…
Speed and storage space does not measure complete understanding. I refuse to believe that mechanical simulation and calculations are synonyms for human competence. The difference between a human brain and the mechanics in a computer is that the human brain causes understanding and gives reason and purpose to the things it learns. A computer, on the other hand, just computes. It has input and outputs that are programmed for the specific task. It will not on it’s own just be able to magically understand something and give it meaning. All it’s function is to ultimately do as it was programmed to. It will never understand why it knows what it knows or how it got to the point of knowledge, but only understands proper execution. If a computer or program makes a mistake it most likely has nothing to do with the machine it’s self, but with it’s creator who demonstrated the flaw in the first place. The computer has no idea it even made a misjudgment because it doesn’t have the capacity to really understand the inaccuracy. Consciousness is not required for a machine to work. Machines are the product of human algorithms and mathematical coding. Like Searle said, Watson didn’t understand that it won Jeopardy or that it was playing at all. All Watson was programmed to do was
Andy Clark strongly argues for the theory that computers have the potential for being intelligent beings in his work “Mindware: Meat Machines.” The support Clark uses to defend his claims states the similar comparison of humans and machines using an array of symbols to perform functions. The main argument of his work can be interpreted as follows:
deep need to probe the mysterious space between human thoughts and what is a machine can
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
It is a prevailing assumption among both philosophers that having an accurate belief of our self and the world is important. On the topic of free will and moral responsibility, Strawson argues for the pessimist viewpoint while Susan argues for the compatibilist viewpoint.
Earl Rochester’s argument is to make drinking a privilege to say, with a drinking license. This will require a “drinker’s ed class,” because it's just like driver’s ed, you have to read a manual and then take a written test what will be next a drinking portion to see if you can handle this “privilege.” I strongly disagree with Mr. Rochester not because I believe in underage drinking or alcoholism but because of the mere fact that this drinking license will not help since no matter what obstacles adolescents and alcoholics will find a way to get their hands on alcohol.
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
Can machines think? This question, addressed by Descartes and Turing, leads to discussion of how thought is constructed and what is the mind made of. At the heart of the debate, there is a schism between Cartesian dualism and functionalism. Language is a method considered by both sides as evidence of thought and provides the test for intelligence. This essay will look at Descartes’ objections and Turing’s arguments for whether machine can ever think. This essay will argue that Turing’s, and the functionalist, view is correct. It questions whether Turing’s test provides sufficient evidence of machine intelligence, and uses Searle’s Chinese room to explain why intentionality matters.
John Markoff the author of “Computer wins on ‘Jeopardy!’: Trivial, It’s Not” discusses how Watson, an I.B.M computer the size of a room, takes down two former Jeopardy champions. Watson is leading the way for future development when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI) helping the workforce. Markoff discusses how this affects the future of AI as we know it, but he is also quick to point out that there are still flaws. Watson was developed by I.B.M. to specifically answer questions. Over a three day period Watson took on two former champions, one being Mr. Jennings known for winning 74 straight days and Mr. Rutter who is the all-time money winning champion on Jeopardy. This was not a stunt put on by I.B.M., they specifically wanted to show
For years philosophers have enquired into the nature of the mind, and specifically the mysteries of intelligence and consciousness. (O’Brien 2017) One of these mysteries is how a material object, the brain, can produce thoughts and rational reasoning. The Computational Theory of Mind (CTM) was devised in response to this problem, and suggests that the brain is quite literally a computer, and that thinking is essentially computation. (BOOK) This idea was first theorised by philosopher Hilary Putnam, but was later developed by Jerry Fodor, and continues to be further investigated today as cognitive science, modern computers, and artificial intelligence continue to advance. [REF] Computer processing machines ‘think’ by recognising information
Are machines available to think intelligently? To act like a human, to think like a human, to understand the meaning from the words like human do? Do machines have a mind? Many films showed audiences that robot have a mind, which pretended they have a mental state (such as emotions, consciousness,
Strong AI says that a computer, if programmed correctly, literally has a mind. What is a mind? The mind enables a person to be aware of the world, to think, and to feel. It is the faculty of consciousness and thought. Humans have minds, even animals have minds. But to say that programmed robots have minds, like what strong AI says, is quite a stretch. The human mind and strong AI have all sorts of differences. For example, in the Chinese room experiment Searle says something along the lines that computers exploit formal symbols according to rules in the program. The human mind can learn things, it can be aware of what
The traditional notion that seeks to compare human minds, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is self-defeating and it should be discredited in dialogs regarding the theory of artificial intelligence. This traditional notion is akin to comparing, in crude terms, cars and aeroplanes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviours of elements in the brain, and these behaviours in are adjudged by the biochemical composition of our brains, which are responsible for our thoughts and functions. When we discuss mental states of systems it is important to distinguish between human brains and that of any natural or artificial organisms which is said to have central processing systems (i.e. brains of chimpanzees, microchips etc.). Although various similarities may exist between those systems in terms of functions and behaviourism, the intrinsic intentionality within those systems differ extensively. Although it may not be possible to prove that whether or not mental states exist at all in systems other than our own, in this paper I will strive to present arguments that a machine that computes and responds to inputs does indeed have a state of mind, but one that does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This paper will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of human brains and yet they are indeed states of a mind resulting from various functions in their central processing systems.
We all know that computers can help a jumbo jet land safely in the worst of weather, aid astronauts in complex maneuvers in space, guide missiles accurately over vast stretches of land, and assist doctors and physicians in creating images of the interior of the human body. We are lucky and pleased that computers can perform these functions for us. But in doing them, computers show no intelligence, but merely carry out lengthy complex calculations while serving as our obedient helpers. Yet the question of whether computers can think, whether they are able to show any true intelligence has been a controversial one from the day humans first realized the full potential of computers. Exactly what intelligence is, how it comes about, and how we test for it have become issues central to computer science and, more specifically, to artificial intelligence. In searching for a domain in which to study these issues, many scientists have selected the field of strategic games. Strategic games require what is generally understood to a high level of intelligence, and through these games, researchers hope to measure the full potential of computers as thinking machines (Levy & Newborn 1).
To begin with, Watson was a supercomputer, which was programmed to compete in the game “Jeopardy!” Watson, a room-sized supercomputer competed against Ken Jennings, who is famous for successfully winning 74 games in a row on “Jeopardy!” and Brad Rutter. Watson was an early form of AI, which stands for artificial intelligence. Ultimately, Watson ended up winning the game of “Jeopardy!” which came with both positive and negative responses. Furthermore, Stanley Fish wrote a column in the New York Times stating his feelings about Watson. Fish believes that computers are nothing more than calculation. For example, he states, “It has a program [his computer] that directs it to finish words before I do by “consulting” a data base of words I have used that begin with the letters I have already typed. “Consulting” is in quotation marks because the computer isn’t doing anything that requires intelligence as opposed t...
In the past few decades we have seen how computers are becoming more and more advance, challenging the abilities of the human brain. We have seen computers doing complex assignments like launching of a rocket or analysis from outer space. But the human brain is responsible for, thought, feelings, creativity, and other qualities that make us humans. So the brain has to be more complex and more complete than any computer. Besides if the brain created the computer, the computer cannot be better than the brain. There are many differences between the human brain and the computer, for example, the capacity to learn new things. Even the most advance computer can never learn like a human does. While we might be able to install new information onto a computer it can never learn new material by itself. Also computers are limited to what they “learn”, depending on the memory left or space in the hard disk not like the human brain which is constantly learning everyday. Computers can neither make judgments on what they are “learning” or disagree with the new material. They must accept into their memory what it’s being programmed onto them. Besides everything that is found in a computer is based on what the human brain has acquired though experience.