Artificial Intelligence. Essay

Through this, Searle argues that if a human and machine receive the same input and then respond by the same output, how are they any different from one another? When given the same purpose, humans and machines have the same response, therefore machines may have a mind. Gilbert Ryle created The computational theory of mind that claims “Computers behave in seemingly rational ways; their inner program causes them to behave in this way and therefore mental states are just like computational states”. He continues on by saying that “If logic can be used to command, and these commands can be coded into logic, then these commands can be coded in terms of 1s and 0s, therefore giving modern computers logic. Through this, how is one to tell if robots don’t have minds if they use logic just like humans do. When the purpose of humans and machines are the same, they may process differently in order to complete that purpose, although they may have the same output. Because humans and machines receive the same input and return the same output, they both have minds in addition to functions and processes in order to do that.

Even with the correct programming a computer cannot freely think for itself, with its own conscious thought. John Searle is a philosopher of mind and language at UC Berkeley. Searle’s Chinese Room Argument is against the premise of Strong AI. He argues that even though a computer may have the ability to compute the use of syntax (Weak AI), a computer could not be able to understand the meaning behind the words it is communicating. Semantics convey both intentional and un-intentional content in communication. Though a computer could be programmed to recognize which words would convey the correct meaning of a symbol. This,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Searle thought that computers can’t think because they are programmed and lack the biological means to think. John Searle’s argument uses the difference between strong artificial intelligence and weak or cautious artificial intelligence. Strong Artificial intelligence will make it seem that an appropriately programmed computer will be able to seem like it can think and understand. Computers can seem to trick people into thinking

Through the use of his famous Chinese room scenario, John R. Searle tries to prove there is no way artificial intelligence can exist. This means that machines do not posses minds.

Searle believed that materialism and functionalism did not give a full explanation to the human mind, that there was much more to the human mind then electrochemical activity. He believed that we could teach machines syntax (sentence order) but not semantics (understanding of theme). Therefore computers would not know what they were doing but basically just replying to specific stimuli.

In his essay, Minds, Brains, and Computers, John Searle attempts to prove that Strong AI does not exist. He still believes that there is some merit to weak AI, as a means for understanding how certain elements of the brain function, but using computers as a way of not only mimicking the brain but actually being a mind. The most concrete example that Searle used in support of his claim was that computers cannot understand, and he demonstrated this through the Chinese Room experiment. In the Chinese Room Experiment, a person can functionally answer questions in a language that they do not understand, as long as they are given the tools to match certain words to words that they understand in their native language. In this experiment the subject

As mentioned, it can be evidently shown through the Turing Test, if a computer perfectly mimics the human mind through various questions without being detected as one, it would be deemed intelligent and thus it has a mind just like us. However, Searle’s objection to the computer’s simulated intelligence to genuine intelligence represented through the Chinese Room Argument presented does not entirely illustrate a successful criticism against strong artificial intelligence. Searle’s Chinese Room Argument shows how a system, in this case is the Chinese Room, can simulate intelligence without possessing any understanding, invalidating functionalism and Strong AI; a system with functional equivalence has to have mental equivalence, therefore a mind. The argument proposed explains how Searle is put in a room with Chinese characters and a rulebook (program) to create appropriate Chinese sentences, as he does not understand any Chinese at all.

The second claim of strong AI, which Searle objects to, is the claim that the system explains human understanding. Searle asserts that since the system is functioning, in this case passing the Turing Test, (Brigeman, 1980) there

In discussions of Artificial Intelligence, one controversial issue has been that A.I could at one point start control themselves and go against the owner. On the one hand, some people argue that A.I could be helpful in many other ways like with technology and in certain fields. On the other hand, some people oppose it because they can take away a lot of jobs just by having these things. Others believe that A.I is a good thing because it can be used in certain types of fields. My own view is that Artificial Intelligence is a bad thing because of all things that can go wrong and because of the jobs it can take away.

Is John Searle’s Chinese room argument a decisive objection to functionalism? Why or why not? Introduction Development within artificial intelligence (AI) has produced machines or computers that can imitate human-like understanding and intelligence. Programs have been produced to allow AI a form of seemingly natural interaction. Due to such movement in technology can we use the notion of functionalism to suggest that these AI can understand, think and be intelligent?

In his paper “Minds, brains, and programs”, Searle makes an argument against the theory of strong AI, which states that running a program is sufficient for understanding. This view on strong AI is very closely connected to the theory of computationalism, which claims that the mind is like a computer, and that thinking is something as simple as symbol manipulation and providing outputs in response to corresponding input. Searle claims that this belief is unreasonable, and proves it with his “Chinese room example”. Making it obvious that running a program, alone, is not enough of a basis for understanding. However, while Searle is correct with his assumption, computationalists have many arguments against his example, stating that he is clearly

* Developments in computer science would lead to parallels being drawn between human thought and the computational functionality of computers, opening entirely new areas of psychological thought. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon spent years developing the concept of artificial intelligence (AI) and later worked with cognitive psychologists regarding the implications of AI. The effective result was more of a framework conceptualization of mental functions with

Alan Turing, “father” of modern computers, created the Turing Machine in order to prove, through the use of an imitation game, that computers can think. John Searle argued that the Turing Test is simply just imitating, rather than thinking. Based on Searle’s argument against the Turing Test, I think that computers cannot have minds. Although Turing argues that computers can think, there are many arguments, such as Searle’s Chinese room argument, and defenses that I will present that support Searle and his belief that computers do not understand the information they simulate and cannot think.

Searle identifies two philosophical positions: strong AI and weak AI. The former proposes that suitably programmed machines can genuinely understand language(or possess any mental ability specific to humans), whereas the latter considers that machines can only simulate such abilities. Searle's view is that he has proved that the strong AI position is