Searle's Argument Against Functionalism And Strong Artificial Intelligence

1472 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Can computers think

John Searle is arguing against functionalism and strong artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is the view that the mind is a computer program and the brain is just a digital computer.
Although Searle's argument helped me gain a better understanding of biological phenomena and artificial intelligence, I am not compelled into believing that his argument is sufficient enough to prove that "no computer program by itself is sufficient to give a system a mind" (page 682, conclusion #2, paragraph 7 "Can computers think? John Searle). Ill explain more after I summarize John Searle's "Can computers think?" Argument.
Searle's argument is directed at what he defines as "strong artificial intelligence" (AI). His argument counters the belief …show more content…

(page 680, paragraph 5, "Can computers think?" John Searle) The Chinese room argument suggests that these elements by themselves "have no connection with understanding". (page 680, paragraph 2, "Can computers think?" John Searle) In this way, Searle argues further that the formal principles of a computer will not be sufficient for understanding "since a human will be able to follow the formal principles without understanding anything." (page 679, paragraph 4, "Can computers think?" John Searle In short, formal symbols are not sufficient conditions for understanding. Moreover, he states that no reasons have been given to suppose that when someone understands English, he is operating with any formal program at all.
According to Searle, "a program cannot give a computer a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness" (page 681, paragraph 3, "Can computers think? John Searle). Concluding, a computer can't be intelligent since the symbols it processes are meaningless, and it doesn’t matter how intelligent-seeming a computer behaves and which kind of programming makes it behave that way. The computers internal states and processes, being purely syntactic, lack semantics. It doesn’t have intentional states. (page 683, conclusion #4, paragraph 4, "Can computers think?" John

Show More
Related

  • Views on Computationalism: Clark vs. Searle

    1315 Words  | 3 Pages

    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:

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Turing's Test For Machine Intelligence

    1255 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I will evaluate and present A.M. Turing’s test for machine intelligence and describe how the test works. I will explain how the Turing test is a good way to answer if machines can think. I will also discuss Objection (4) the argument from Consciousness and Objection (6) Lady Lovelace’s Objection and how Turing responded to both of the objections. And lastly, I will give my opinion on about the Turing test and if the test is a good way to answer if a machine can think.

    Read More

  • Mindless Machines

    1664 Words  | 4 Pages

    The official foundations for "artificial intelligence" were set forth by A. M. Turing, in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" wherein he also coined the term and made predictions about the field. He claimed that by 1960, a computer would be able to formulate and prove complex mathematical theorems, write music and poetry, become world chess champion, and pass his test of artificial intelligences. In his test, a computer is required to carry on a compelling conversation with humans, fooling them into believing they are speaking with another human. All of his predictions require a computer to think and reason in the same manner as a human. Despite 50 years of effort, only the chess championship has come true. By refocusing artificial intelligence research to a more humanlike, cognitive model, the field will create machines that are truly intelligent, capable of meet Turing's goals. Currently, the only "intelligent" programs and computers are not really intelligent at all, but rather they are clever applications of different algorithms lacking expandability and versatility. The human intellect has only been used in limited ways in the artificial intelligence field, however it is the ideal model upon which to base research. Concentrating research on a more cognitive model will allow the artificial intelligence (AI) field to create more intelligent entities and ultimately, once appropriate hardware exists, a true AI.

    Read More

  • John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

    1990 Words  | 4 Pages

    Searle's argument delineates what he believes to be the invalidity of the computational paradigm's and artificial intelligence's (AI) view of the human mind. He first distinguishes between strong and weak AI. Searle finds weak AI as a perfectly acceptable investigation in that it uses the computer as a strong tool for studying the mind. This in effect does not observe or formulate any contentions as to the operation of the mind, but is used as another psychological, investigative mechanism. In contrast, strong AI states that the computer can be created so that it actually is the mind. We must first describe what exactly this entails. In order to be the mind, the computer must be able to not only understand, but to have cognitive states. Also, the programs by which the computer operates are the focus of the computational paradigm, and these are the explanations of the mental states. Searle's argument is against the claims of Shank and other computationalists who have created SHRDLU and ELIZA, that their computer programs can (1) be ascribe...

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Where Am I By Daniel Dennett

    2592 Words  | 6 Pages

    Computers are well known for their ability to perform computations and follow a list of instructions, but can a computer be a mind? There are varying philosophical theories on what constitutes a mind. Some believe that the mind must be a physical object, and others believe in dualism, or the idea that the mind is separate from the brain. I am a firm believer in dualism, and this is part of the argument that I will use in the favor of Dennett. The materialist view however, would likely not consider Hubert to be a mind. That viewpoint believes that all objects are physical objects, so the mind is a physical part of a human brain, and thus this viewpoint doesn’t consider the mind and body as two separate things, but instead they are both parts of one object. The materialist would likely reject Hubert as a mind, even though circuit boards are a physical object, although even a materialist would likely agree that Yorick being separated from Dennett does not disqualify Yorick as a mind. If one adopts a dualism view and accept the idea that the mind does not have to be connected to a physical object, then one can make sense of Hubert being able to act as the mind of Dennett. The story told to us by Dennett, is that when the switch is flipped on his little box attached to his body, the entity that controls Dennett, changes to the other entity. Since the switches are not labeled, it is never known which entity is

    Read More

  • John Searle's Chinese Room Argument

    825 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Searle’s Chinese room argument from his work “Minds, Brains, and Programs” was a thought experiment against the premises of strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). The premises of conclude that something is of the strong AI nature if it can understand and it can explain how human understanding works. I will argue that the Chinese room argument successfully disproves the conclusion of strong AI, however, it does not provide an explanation of what understanding is which becomes problematic when creating a distinction between humans and machines.

    Read More

  • John Searle's Can Computers Think?

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    Computers are machines that take syntactical information only and then function based on a program made from syntactical information. They cannot change the function of that program unless formally stated to through more information. That is inherently different from a human mind, in that a computer never takes semantic information into account when it comes to its programming. Searle’s formal argument thus amounts to that brains cause minds. Semantics cannot be derived from syntax alone. Computers are defined by a formal structure, in other words, a syntactical structure. Finally, minds have semantic content. The argument then concludes that the way the mind functions in the brain cannot be likened to running a program in a computer, and programs themselves are insufficient to give a system thought. (Searle, p.682) In conclusion, a computer cannot think and the view of strong AI is false. Further evidence for this argument is provided in Searle’s Chinese Room thought-experiment. The Chinese Room states that I, who does not know Chinese, am locked in a room that has several baskets filled with Chinese symbols. Also in that room is a rulebook that specifies the various manipulations of the symbols purely based on their syntax, not their semantics. For example, a rule might say move the squiggly

    Read More

  • Computer Evolution Evidenced in the essays "Toward An Intelligence Beyond Man’s" by Robert Jastrow and "The AI Revolution Is On" by Steven Levy

    649 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... in 21th century, and it might already dominate humans’ life. Jastrow predicted computer will be part of human society in the future, and Levy’s real life examples matched Jastrow’s prediction. The computer intelligence that Jastrow mentioned was about imitated human brain and reasoning mechanism. However, according to Levy, computer intelligence nowadays is about developing AI’s own reasoning pattern and handling complicated task from data sets and algorithms, which is nothing like human. From Levy’s view on today’s version of AI technology, Jastrow’s prediction about AI evolution is not going to happen. As computer intelligence does not aim to recreate a human brain, the whole idea of computer substitutes human does not exist. Also, Levy said it is irrelevant to fear AI may control human, as people in today’s society cannot live without computer intelligence.

    Read More

  • The Nature Of The Mind: The Computational Theory Of Mind

    1237 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • John Searle

    674 Words  | 2 Pages

    In John Searle’s paper, Minds, Brains, and Programs, he rejects the idea that the human mind behaves and computes similarly to that of a computer program. Searle comes to this conclusion by arguing against a specific type of functionalism, the Computational Theory of the Mind. He does so by objecting many of Roger Schank’s projects, ‘which aim to simulate the human ability to understand stories; being able to answer questions about a story even though the information that they give is never explicitly stated in the story’. Searle’s main focus will revolve around famous project known as the Chinese Room experiment. Using this experiment Searle refutes the idea and claim that an “appropriately programmed computer” can have the ability to think

    Read More

  • John Searle Analysis

    2048 Words  | 5 Pages

    Argument Reconstruction and Objection on Searle’s Essay American philosopher John Searle wrote Minds, Brains, and Programs in 1980 to discredit the existence of strong artificial intelligence. He starts off by drawing a clear line between strong artificial intelligence and weak artificial intelligence, which he has no objections against. Searle uses the work of Roger Schank as the basis for what strong artificial intelligence tries to accomplish. Simply put, the purpose of Schank’s program is to “simulate the human ability to understand stories” and through this it should be able to understand the story and provide answers to questions about it, while being able to express metacognition. On the other hand, weak A.I. will be used as a “very

    Read More

  • Do Computers Think?

    831 Words  | 2 Pages

    Can or will computers ever think? Well this has been a subject of much debate between even the greatest minds, and yet there is still no answer. First of all I have would like you to answer a question. What is 4x13? Did you have to think to answer that? Yes? Well does that mean that a computer can think because it can answer that question. Well that is what we are going to set to answer and I think yes, depending on your definition of thinking.

    Read More

  • The Chinese Room Argument

    907 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Searle developed two areas of thought concerning the independent cognition of computers. These ideas included the definition of a weak AI and a strong AI. In essence, these two types of AI have their fundamental differences. The weak AI was defined as a system, which simply were systems that simulations of the human mind and AI systems that were characterized as an AI system that is completely capable of cognitive processes such as consciousness and intentionality, as well as understanding. He utilizes the argument of the Chinese room to show that the strong AI does not exist.

    Read More

  • Can Machines Think?

    2586 Words  | 6 Pages

    ...lligent, intentional activity taking place inside the room and the digital computer. The proponents of Searle’s argument, however, would counter that if there is an entity which does computation, such as human being or computer, it cannot understand the meanings of the symbols it uses. They maintain that digital computers do not understand the input given in or the output given out. But it cannot be claimed that the digital computers as whole cannot understand. Someone who only inputs data, being only a part of the system, cannot know about the system as whole. If there is a person inside the Chinese room manipulating the symbols, the person is already intentional and has a mental state, thus, due to the seamless integration of their systems of hardware and software that understand the inputs and outputs as whole systems, digital computers too have states of mind.

    Read More

  • The Human Brain versus Computers

    645 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Searle's Argument Against Functionalism And Strong Artificial Intelligence

Open Document