The mind-body problem has captivated the minds of philosophers for centuries. The problem is how the body and mind can interact with each other if they are separate and distinct. One solution to the problem is to replace any mental term with a more accurate physical description. Eliminative Materialists take this idea to the extreme by stating that everything that is believed to be mental will someday be explained in terms of the physical world. One way that people try to prove Eliminative Materialism to be true is through technology. Certainly if we are able to create computers and software that mimic the human mind, then Eliminative Materialism is a sound solution to the mind-body problem. In order to examine if computers actually do mimic the human mind then we must first look at the capabilities of the human mind. If one looks closely at the capabilities of the human mind and compares them to the most recent technological advances, then it would be obvious that computers and software are beginning to mimic even the most advanced mental states. In the future, computers will be able to do anything the human mind is capable of thus proving Eliminative Materialism to be a sound solution to the mind-body problem.
Most of the day the human mind is taking in information, analyzing it, storing it accordingly, and recalling past knowledge to solve problems logically. This is similar to the life of any computer. Humans gain information through the senses. Computers gain similar information through a video camera, a microphone, a touch pad or screen, and it is even possible for computers to analyze scent and chemicals. Humans also gain information through books, other people, and even computers, all of which computers can access through software, interfacing, and modems. For the past year speech recognition software products have become mainstream(Lyons,176). All of the ways that humans gain information are mimicked by computers. Humans then proceed to analyze and store the information accordingly. This is a computer's main function in today's society. Humans then take all of this information and solve problems logically. This is where things get complex. There are expert systems that can solve complex problems that humans train their whole lives for. In 1997, IBM's Deep Blue defeated the world champion in a game of chess(Karlgaard, p43). Expert systems design buildings, configure airplanes, and diagnose breathing problems. NASA's Deep Space One probe left with software that lets the probe diagnose problems and fix itself(Lyons).
Computationalism: the view that computation, an abstract notion of materialism lacking semantics and real-world interaction, offers an explanatory basis for human comprehension. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss and compare different views regarding computationalism, and the arguments associated with these views. The two main arguments I feel are the strongest are proposed by Andy Clark, in “Mindware: Meat Machines”, and John Searle in “Minds, Brains, and Programs.”
One of the key questions raised by Rupert Sheldrake in the Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, is are we more than the ghost in the machine? It is perfectly acceptable to Sheldrake that humans are more than their brain, and because of this, and in actual reality “the mind is indeed extended beyond the brain, as most people throughout most of human history have believed.” (Sheldrake, Seven Experiments 104)
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
One of the hottest topics that modern science has been focusing on for a long time is the field of artificial intelligence, the study of intelligence in machines or, according to Minsky, “the science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by men”.(qtd in Copeland 1). Artificial Intelligence has a lot of applications and is used in many areas. “We often don’t notice it but AI is all around us. It is present in computer games, in the cruise control in our cars and the servers that route our email.” (BBC 1). Different goals have been set for the science of Artificial Intelligence, but according to Whitby the most mentioned idea about the goal of AI is provided by the Turing Test. This test is also called the imitation game, since it is basically a game in which a computer imitates a conversating human. In an analysis of the Turing Test I will focus on its features, its historical background and the evaluation of its validity and importance.
Once Deep Blue supercomputer defeated chess grandmaster Kasparov, he, Kasparov, thought what would happen if “humans and computers collaborated” (Thompson 343)? Kasparov figured that it would be a symbiotic relationship in which “each might benefit from the other’s peculiar powers” (Thompson344). A Notably example would a 2005 “freestyle” chess tournament, which consisted of teams with computers and chess players. With a tournament full of computers and chess grandmasters, the winners were amateur chess players Cramton and Zackary (Thompson345). The reason why these players were able to win is because they were “expert[s] at collaborating with computers.” By themselves these players would not have the skills to take on such talented players, but since Cramton and Zackary were able to know “when to rely on human smarts and when to rely on the machine’s advice” they were able to succeed (Thompson 345). These players were able to harness the power of the symbiotic relationship between man and machine. In conclusion, when it comes down to the wire on “who’s smarter-humans or machines; the answer is neither, it’s both working side by side” (Thompson 347). In addition, the benefits of these digital gadgets can be summarized into three
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
Artificial Intelligence is a term not too widely used in today’s society. With today’s technology we haven’t found a way to enable someone to leave their physical body and let their mind survive within a computer. Could it be possible? Maybe someday, but for now it’s just in theory. The novel by William Gibson, Neuromancer, has touched greatly on the idea of artificial intelligence. He describes it as a world where many things are possible. By simply logging on the computer, it opens up a world we could never comprehend. The possibilities are endless in the world of William Gibson.
In this paper, I will explain and argue for two-way interactive substance dualism. Dualism is a term referred to the idea that there are only two basic kinds of things and everything real is categorized under those two things. Dualism is split into two types, substance dualism, and property dualism. Substance dualism is the idea that the mind and body are two different sorts of basic substance, whereas property dualism is our mental and physical properties are two separate types of basic properties even though they may be properties of the same thing (lecture). Branching from dualism, mind-body dualism argues that the mind and body are two separate entities. Although they are two different substances, i.e. brain/body being material and
The 'mind-body' problem has troubled philosophers for centuries. This is because no human being has been able to sufficiently explain how the mind actually works and how this mind relates to the body - most importantly to the brain. If this were not true then there would not be such heated debates on the subject. No one objects to the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun because it is empirical fact. However, there is no current explanation on the mind that can be accepted as fact. In 'What is it like to be a bat?', Thomas Nagel does not attempt to solve this 'problem'. Instead, he attempts to reject the reductionist views with his argument on subjectivity. He examines the difficulties of the mind-body problem by investigating the conscious experience of an organism, which is usually ignored by the reductionists. Unfortunately, his arguments contain some flaws but they do shed some light as to why the physicalist view may never be able to solve the mind-body problem.
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.
In order to see how artificial intelligence plays a role on today’s society, I believe it is important to dispel any misconceptions about what artificial intelligence is. Artificial intelligence has been defined many different ways, but the commonality between all of them is that artificial intelligence theory and development of computer systems that are able to perform tasks that would normally require a human intelligence such as decision making, visual recognition, or speech recognition. However, human intelligence is a very ambiguous term. I believe there are three main attributes an artificial intelligence system has that makes it representative of human intelligence (Source 1). The first is problem solving, the ability to look ahead several steps in the decision making process and being able to choose the best solution (Source 1). The second is the representation of knowledge (Source 1). While knowledge is usually gained through experience or education, intelligent agents could very well possibly have a different form of knowledge. Access to the internet, the la...
Can Computers Think? The Case For and Against Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence has been the subject of many bad "80's" movies and countless science fiction novels. But what happens when we seriously consider the question of computers that think. Is it possible for computers to have complex thoughts, and even emotions, like homo sapien? This paper will seek to answer that question and also look at what attempts are being made to make artificial intelligence (hereafter called AI) a reality. Before we can investigate whether or not computers can think, it is necessary to establish what exactly thinking is. Examining the three main theories is sort of like examining three religions. None offers enough support so as to effectively eliminate the possibility of the others being true. The three main theories are: 1. Thought doesn't exist; enough said. 2. Thought does exist, but is contained wholly in the brain. In other words, the actual material of the brain is capable of what we identify as thought. 3. Thought is the result of some sort of mystical phenomena involving the soul and a whole slew of other unprovable ideas. Since neither reader nor writer is a scientist, for all intents and purposes, we will say only that thought is what we (as homo sapien) experience. So what are we to consider intelligence? The most compelling argument is that intelligence is the ability to adapt to an environment. Desktop computers can, say, go to a specific WWW address. But, if the address were changed, it wouldn't know how to go about finding the new one (or even that it should). So intelligence is the ability to perform a task taking into consideration the circumstances of completing the task. So now that we have all of that out of that way, can computers think? The issue is contested as hotly among scientists as the advantages of Superman over Batman is among pre-pubescent boys. On the one hand are the scientists who say, as philosopher John Searle does, that “Programs are all syntax and no semantics.” (Discover, 106) Put another way, a computer can actually achieve thought because it “merely follows rules that tell it how to shift symbols without ever understanding the meaning of those symbols.” (Discover, 106) On the other side of the debate are the advocates of pandemonium, explained by Robert Wright in Time thus: “[O]ur brain subconsciously generates competing theories about the world, and only the ‘winning' theory becomes part of consciousness.
But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human life, such as human dignity and personal identity. The mind-body problem entails two theories, dualism and physicalism. Dualism contends that distinct mental and physical realms exist, and they both must be taken into account. Its counterpart (weak) physicalism views the human as being completely bodily and physical, encompassing no non-physical, or spiritual, substances.
Recently, the media has spent an increasing amount of broadcast time on new technology. The focus of high-tech media has been aimed at the flurry of advances concerning artificial intelligence (AI). What is artificial intelligence and what is the media talking about? Are these technologies beneficial to our society or potential threats? Medical facilities, police departments, and manufacturing plants have all been changed by AI. Will machine language and artificial neural network replace humans in the future?
The idea about how the brain operates has been around for centuries and the amount of ideas surrounding it is endless. Some of the ideas that people have proposed are that the brain is meant to cool the blood or the brain is an electrical device (Thiede 2016). Although there are many theories that explain how the human mind works, one in particular is the theory that the human mind is a computer. John von Neumann proposed the idea of the human mind as a computer in 1958 and it became popular from his book about it. The similarities that have been found between humans and computers involve the way that cells and diodes function. Unfortunately, John von Neumann did not complete the idea of the human mind as a computer because he passed away before