In the reading of John R. Searle Minds, Brains, and Programs, he claims that the strong artificial intelligence to the effect is suitably programmed computers and in fact have minds. He stats that computers can have understand things. In contrasts their weak AI, which claims that computers are like a powerful tool that people can use to study the mind with. To be a little more specific, Searle concentrated on the AI program that answered questions such as stories based information. The strong AI claims that the calculations operated by computers are sufficient for the computers to understand and that those calculations tell us about how the human minds work. He says that because such operations are needed in order for it to be a mind at all. …show more content…
The computers that form the foundation for strong AI claims, gives the impression to understand language. For an example, look at a person that reads and comprehends only the English language. However one is taught to examine flash cards, which contain words that are printed in Chinese. How can something perform certain procedures with Chinese words written on them, without ever learning the Chinese Language? To a Chinese person writing questions down on pieces of paper and receiving flashcards with answers on them, then the answers appear to be been printed by a person who comprehends Chinese. Searle points out that the person printing in the Chinese language in fact doesn’t understand Chinese at all. In the same way, a computer simply uses symbols and answers questions the same way a human would. A computer doesn’t understand any language. The person printing Chinese symbols is an example of a computer program calculating certain symbols. The person never really understood Chinese at all. Just like a computer or any other device. Computer programs that answer questions just like a human would understand the questions and answer …show more content…
He replied by saying, he really has no objection. He defines strong AI as whatever artificially produces and explains cognition. He argued against his previous claim because although it was a well-defined thesis, it does not mold well with his new one because it is not something that you can truly test or true hypothesis in which his opposition can apply like the first one. Searles was incompetent. To start off Searle gave his definition of a strong AI to start off with, so it would be incorrect and inaccurate. To assume that other people are making up their own definition when in fact they are actually changing Searles
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:
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...
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
I will begin by providing a brief overview of the thought experiment and how Searle derives his argument. Imagine there is someone in a room, say Searle himself, and he has a rulebook that explains what to write when he sees certain Chinese symbols. On the other side of the room is a Chinese speaker who writes Searle a note. After Searle receives the message, he must respond—he uses the rulebook to write a perfectly coherent response back to the actual Chinese speaker. From an objective perspective, you would not say that Searle is actually able to write in Chinese fluently—he does not understand Chinese, he only knows how to compute symbols. Searle argues that this is exactly what happens if a computer where to respond to the note in Chinese. He claims that computers are only able to compute information without actually being able to understand the information they are computing. This fails the first premise of strong AI. It also fails the second premise of strong AI because even if a computer were capable of understanding the communication it is having in Chinese, it would not be able to explain how this understanding occurs.
In “Can Computers Think?”, Searle argues that computers are unable to think like humans can. He argues this
People have been in awe of computers since they were first invented. At first scientist said that computers would only be for government usage only. “Then when the scientists saw the potential computers had, scientist then predicted that by 1990 computers may one day invade the home of just about ever citizen in the world” (“History” Internet), the scientists were slightly wrong, because by 1990 computers were just beginning to catch on. Then a few years later when scientists when to major corporations to get help with a special project, the corporations said no, because computers would just be a fad and they wouldn’t make much money off of it. “By definition Abacus is the first computer (the proper definition of a computer is one who or that which computes) ever invented” (Internet).
In 500 B.C. the abacus was first used by the Babylonians as an aid to simple arithmetic. In 1623 Wihelm Schickard (1592 - 1635) invented a "Calculating Clock". This mechanical machine could add and subtract up to 6 digit numbers, and warned of an overflow by ringing a bell. J. H. Mueller comes up with the idea of the "difference engine", in 1786. This calculator could tabulate values of a polynomial. Muellers attempt to raise funds fails and the project was forgotten. Scheutz and his son Edward produced a 3rd order difference engine with a printer in 1843 and their government agreed to fund their next project.
... 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.
Specifically, in how the theory likens conscious intelligence to a mimicry of consciousness. In Alan Turing’s study of computing and consciousness, he developed the Turing Test, which essentially led to the notion that if a computing machine or artificial intelligence could perfectly mimic human communication, it was deemed ‘conscious’. REF. However, many do not agree and instead argue that while computers may be able to portray consciousness and semantics, it is not commensurable to actual thought and consciousness. Simulation is not the same as conscious thinking, and having a conscious understanding of the sematic properties of the symbols it is manipulating. This flaw was portrayed in John Searle’s thought experiment, ‘The Chinese Room’. Searle places a person who cannot speak Chinese in a room with various Chinese characters and a book of instructions, while a person outside of the room that speaks Chinese communicates through written Chinese message passed into the room. The non-Chinese speaker responds by manipulating the uninterpreted Chinese characters, or symbols, in conjunction with the syntactical instruction book, giving the illusion that they can speak Chinese. This process simulated the operation of a computer program, yet the non-Chinese speaker clearly had no understanding of the messages, or of Chinese, and was still able to produce
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.
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.
...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.
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...
Therewithal some scientists defined the artificial intelligence as a system, which can understand the structure of human thinking and can behave similar to them, in other word, developing a computer system that is able to imitate human’s behavior.
Thousands of years ago calculations were done using people’s fingers and pebbles that were found just lying around. Technology has transformed so much that today the most complicated computations are done within seconds. Human dependency on computers is increasing everyday. Just think how hard it would be to live a week without a computer. We owe the advancements of computers and other such electronic devices to the intelligence of men of the past.