Star Trek: The Next Generation illustrates machines in the 24th century as having software with immense capabilities and astonishing aptitude to understand. One such machine is the android Data, who serves as a lieutenant commander on the Enterprise-D. Data demonstrates an extraordinary ability to contain knowledge, evolve programs as necessary, and analyze the experiences which it is involved in. Referring to Data as an it, becomes an important issue aboard the Enterprise-D. According to Commander Bruce Maddox, associate chair of robotics at the Daystrom Institute, Data is precisely an it; a machine incapable of thinking which is therefore only property. Captain Jean-Luc Picard, captain of the Enterprise-D, argues Data is more than just a machine, it should be considered a he; an equal to man whom has the right to freewill. This issue is brought to the station’s judge advocate general in order to make a ruling upon the classification of Data. A hearing takes place which explores the more philosophical issue of whether Data is actually capable of thinking, as humans do, or is only a machine with no original thought. Such an exploration is worth furthering, because if Data is can be ruled an equal to man, the question becomes, is it possible for a remarkable machine such as Data to ever actually exist? Through exploring this philosophical issue, the argument will be made that the possibility of thinking machines cannot be dismissed nor should they be sequestered of the right for freewill. The exploration of Data’s capability to be a thinking machine begins with a definition of the mind, since this is the entity which most often is accepted as the producer of thought. This, in itself, is a philosophical issue which raises opposing... ... middle of paper ... ...portant aspects of thinking, without a doubt, how can we condemn them to be property exclusively rather than allowing them to have free will? As argued by Captain Jean-Luc Picard, if a large quantity of machines like Data were produced, then the problem of property or freewill is extended to what could possibly be an entire race. Condemning machines’ possibilities now may have drastic effects on the future. As for the future, Artificial Intelligence should not automatically be discredited because of the interior mechanics of the machine. Only when mankind can determine indisputably another human’s ability to think, can such verdicts concluding property or freewill be placed on machines. Works Cited Ryle, Gilbert. “Descartes’s Myth.” Introduction to Philosophy. Eds. John Perry. Michael Bratman. John Martin Fischer. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 251-258.
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
The purpose of this paper is to present John Searle’s Chinese room argument in which it challenges the notions of the computational paradigm, specifically the ability of intentionality. Then I will outline two of the commentaries following, the first by Bruce Bridgeman, which is in opposition to Searle and uses the super robot to exemplify his point. Then I will discuss John Eccles’ response, which entails a general agreement with Searle with a few objections to definitions and comparisons. My own argument will take a minimalist computational approach delineating understanding and its importance to the concepts of the computational paradigm.
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.
4. Descartes, Rene, and Roger Ariew. Meditations, objections, and replies. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2006. Print.
Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings, tr. John Cottingham and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
SparkNotes: René Descartes (1596–1650). (n.d.). SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides. Retrieved February 8, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/descartes
If a machine passes the test, then it is clear that for many ordinary people it would be a sufficient reason to say that that is a thinking machine. And, in fact, since it is able to conversate with a human and to actually fool him and convince him that the machine is human, this would seem t...
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by John Cottingham. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1996.
This world of artificial intelligence has the power to produce many questions and theories because we don’t understand something that isn’t possible. “How smart’s an AI, Case? Depends. Some aren’t much smarter than dogs. Pets. Cost a fortune anyway. The real smart ones are as smart as the Turing heat is willing to let ‘em get.” (Page 95) This shows that an artificial intelligence can be programmed to only do certain ...
“How do you tell what are real things from what aren’t real things?” (Aldiss 446). Since antiquity, the human mind has been intrigued by artificial intelligence; hence, such rapid growth of computer science has raised many issues concerning the isolation of the human mind. The novella “Super-toys
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.
To start off, to be classified as a sentient being, one must exhibit intelligence. To start off it is important to acknowledge what the definition of intelligence is; intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Data is fully composed of inorganic parts such as circuit boards, wiring, metal, sensors and so on, it is easier to say that Data is a walking and talking computer. On the subject of intelligence it is easier to refer to Data as a computer to determine whether or not it is intelligent. The debate on whether computers are intelligent or not is well supported on both sides of the argument.
Descartes. "Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy." Readings in Modern Philosophy. Ed. Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins. Vol. I. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000. 22-55. Print.
Our minds have created many remarkable things, however the best invention we ever created is the computer. The computer has helped us in many ways by saving time, giving accurate and precise results, also in many other things. but that does not mean that we should rely on the computer to do everything we can work with the computer to help us improve and at the same time improve the computer too. A lot of people believe that robots will behave like humans someday and will be walking on the earth just like us. There should be a limit for everything so that our world would remain peaceful and stable. At the end, we control the computers and they should not control us.