Artificial Intelligence Is More Complicated Than The Mechanical Process Of Thinking

To go full circle on the first point we decided that machines must take into account the concept of making rules and reflecting on past rules. The second point was to see how thinking and self-awareness is achieved at the height of the process of rulemaking. The concept of language and symbols Searles is very important as an example as it sheds light on why machines can’t ever be human even with human brains as Searles claim they need to be a theoretical StrongAI. Language was created by mapping things and association of learned objects. To truly learn a language we have to understand and experience what it stands for. Language is an expression of results based on tests on objects that are now definable. It is a shortcut for learning information. Therefore it’s important that AI does more than think in a correct pattern as our experience of inputs comes from our interactions with one another and what we learn from language and not on our own in solitude. The man the Chinese Room cannot have those things and therefore cannot learn a language in the method he is prescribed. This wraps in the thoughts of the second point as well to feel self-aware we identify ourselves in relation to other people. This shows our society is also one big brain that is made up of variety of rooms or people in this case all making decisions and rules for their

Turing, a physicalist, believed that artificial intelligence could be achieved in the future. Turing argued that the mind was merely due to the physical aspects of the brain and so a machine could one day be created that has a mind of its own, i.e. artificial intelligence. He created a test called the Turing Test to determine whether a machine has artificial intelligence. In the Turing Test, an interrogator asks two subjects a series of questions. One of the subjects is a person, the other is the computer. The goal is for the person to imitate a computer and the computer to imitate the person. If the interrogator is fooled into thinking that the computer is the human then the computer, according to Turing, is concluded to have the ability to think and thus, have a mind. Turing argued that machines passing the Turing Test were sufficient for ascribing thought.

Serle begins his argument very similarly to Lycan, but instead of defining AI, he uses the terms strong and weak to determine AI. Serle says “According to weak AI, the principle value of the computer in the study of the mind is that it gives us a very powerful tool.” (Serle, p. 344) In turn, Serle says “according to strong AI, the computer is not merely a tool in the study of the mind; rather the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers are given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other

Alan Turing, as a Physicalist, saw the mind as the brain, since the brain is the physical object. Applying such views to machines, Turing’s Imitation Game ‘test’ is supposed to demonstrate his claim that certain machines should count as “thinking things” in the same way that we humans do. His argument being that, if a machine could imitate a human well enough to deceive a person that it was not a machine, then it should be considered “conscious.” He found that since most of what we base our foundation of consciousness on (our judgments and interactions with others), if we cannot see the responder in the game (i.e. the computer), and it responds as well as human, then it should also be considered a “thinking thing.” Turing also expected that one day machines would be able to imitate our minds so well, that we would not be able to tell the difference between a real mind or “thinking thing,” and a

For those who do not know, artificial intelligence is exactly what is called, an "intelligence" through a computer that is artificially created by humans. A.I. is defined to be able to learn and use the information it learns to produce "thoughts" of its own, almost as if it were a thinking human. Though many may believe A.I. is just a robot which is able to speak and understand humans, it is much more than that. A.I. technologies are being implemented in smartphones, homes, cars, watches, headphones, and is also being developed to work in many more ways that help give humanity an easier life.

The debate between those who are in favor of strong and weak artificial intelligence (AI) is directly related to the philosophy of mind. The claim of weak AI is that it is possible to run a program on a machine, which will behave as if it were a thinking thing. Believers of strong AI say that it is possible to create a program running on a machine which not only behaves as if it were thinking, but does actually think. Strong AI followers argue that an installation of a computer program is considered a mind as real

Functionalism remains, to this day, one of the most influential theories of the mind. While many facets of functionalism has been tested throughout the century, one of the more interesting questions came in the form of computers. Similarly to a human brain, could computers also think? This idea was explored by John R. Searle, in his book titled, Minds, Brains, and Science. The author is a renowned American philosopher, particularly in the philosophy of language and mind, and is currently teaching at the University of California, in Berkeley (“John R. Searle,” 2014). Searle earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at Oxford, and has made several contributions to his field on topics, such as consciousness, artificial intelligence, and the problem of free will (“John R. Searle,” 2014). His “Chinese Room” experiment is known as one of the main critiques to the concept of artificial intelligence. In Searle’s book, Searle describes his thought process into this experiment during the second chapter, titled “Can Computers Think?” Searle’s purpose of this chapter in the book is to explain his perspective on the idea that digital computers will never develop the capability to form thought processes, and that a concept such as artificial intelligence could never exist, because our mental states exist in a biological manner. He utilizes his “Chinese Room” argument to aid in the development of his objectives.

In Searle’s Chinese Room Argument, the person inside the room is defined as not able to understand Chinese. But in response to that, the Systems Reply brings up the point that while the person might not know any Chinese, the system as a whole understands Chinese. The Virtual Mind Reply is similar to the Systems Reply in that the person inside the room might not understand Chinese by him or herself. But Virtual Mind Reply questions whether understanding is created or not. While the person in the room might not have any knowledge of Chinese at the beginning, running the system might create an agent that does have understanding of Chinese. The Robot Reply, while accepting that the person in the room might not understand Chinese or the computer in the room does not understand a particular language, suggests that “giving a computer a body” would mean something different for the computer. Being able to interact with the environment using sensors might enable the computer to learn. The Brain Simulator Reply suggests to consider the program being

Chapter three shows me one way I might process the world. This way is automatic thought. A test created through Harvard, has used our automatic thought processes to create the IAT. In taking this IAT, I was  pleasantly surprised with my results. However, were they as accurate as they appear to be? Did my results really tell me something important about myself or what I prefer? According to the creators of the test, the test was meant to show us how strongly we make associations between things. In measuring these associations, we can know our automatic thoughts about the concepts tested. They do this through words and images. The reliability and validity of the test comes into question by some psychologists, but specifically Hart Blanton, PhD.

Brack argues that Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Psychology can be implemented into our psychological studies and allow for a new insight on clinical processes, emotions, and understandings of human behavior. They allow for an outside, potentially more logical explanation as to why things are happening, and possible insight into what issues may be persisting. Programs known as Artificial Life programs, which are programs that adapt and simulate a person or life itself. They also use Artificial Intelligence to simulate groups, either on the large or small scale. These simulated groups are created by a program named LIFE3000, and can be used to study human interaction and how we react to different things. For example, they had a group

The necessary criteria was that if the interrogator was not able to reliably tell the machine from the human, the machines has intelligence. The test itself doesn’t test if the answer given to the question are correct, but rather if it can replicate a human’s response, more concerned about the behavioral performance than computational prowess. With the reasoning anomalies, it changes the test’s objective. Rather than testing for intelligence by looking for a human response, it tests for the limitations of processing and recollection abilities of humans. While the abilities of human being are astounding, machines excel at certain process regarding mental competences. This makes it easier to tell the difference between humans and machines, not because machines respond like humans, but rather how humans can’t think like machines. This can’t be used to test for machine

To illustrate his argument that the test is insufficient as a measurement for machine intelligence, French uses the Seagull Test as an analogy for his explanation. In the test, two philosophers on Nordic island are trying to understand what flying really is. The only flying animals on the island are Nordic seagulls, and the two philosophers know that flying is more than staying aloft since clouds stay aloft and don’t fly. Flying is also more than wings and feathers since penguins have both and can’t fly either. Having trouble pinpointing exactly what flying is, they devise the Seagull Test to distinguish what can fly and what can’t. “The Seagull Test works much like the Turing Test. Our philosophers have two three-dimensional radar screens, one of which tracks a real seagull; the other will track the putative flying machine…The machine will be said to have passed the Seagull Test for flight if both philosophers are indefinitely unable to distinguish the seagull from the machine” (French 55).

In his paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Alan Turing sets out to answer the question of whether machines can think in the same humans can by conceptualizing the question in concrete terms. In simple terms, Turing redefines the question by posing whether a machine can replicate the cognition of a human being. Yet, some may object to the notion that Turing’s new question effectively captures the nature of machines’ capacity for thought or consciousness, such as John Searle. In his Chinese room thought experiment, Searle outlines a scenario that implies machines’ apparent replication of human cognition does not yield conscious understanding. While Searle’s Chinese thought experiment demonstrates how a Turing test is not sufficient to establish that a machine can possess consciousness or thought, this argument does not prove that machines are absolutely incapable of consciousness or thought. Rather, given the ongoing uncertainty of the debate regarding the intelligence of machines, there can be no means to confirm or disconfirm the conscious experience of machines as well as the consciousness of humans by extension of that principle.

The architectural structure of Artificial intelligence is the notion to present how the mind functions at its level of abstraction. In effect, this leads to the concept of GOFAI to demonstrate how the mind takes in information, and outputs a response. However, GOFAI has become an unsatisfactory portrayal of human cognition, because it demonstrates itself to be nothing more than a system that manipulates symbols (Dreyfus, ppXXI). For GOFAI turns behaviours and knowledge into a formal script, but lacks the essential aspect of epistemology. For GOFAI doesn 't create opinions, nor does it desire to justify its database of information. Rather, it abides by the rules that are written in its programming, in the presumption it’s data is true. For the epistemological notion of creating, obtaining, and justifying knowledge is a natural aspect of the cognition, and is an essential property of the human intellect. Moreover, the concept of Connectionism, demonstrates itself to be a better archetype of the mind, in explaining how the brain functions, and learns. For the theory of Connectionism isn’t limited to being a symbol manipulator, rather it simulates the functionality of the brain, by replicating its neural structure of how it processes information. Arguably, Connectionism is a better representation of the mind, because it doesn 't limit the cognition as a symbol manipulator, in how it demonstrates the notion of learning and retention of knowledge by simulating the neural structure

Artificial Intelligence is the simulation of human intelligence processed by machines, especially computer systems in which can ran as robots. AI systems are programmed of acquisition of information and rules for using the information to reach approximate or definite conclusions. There are various applications of AI expert systems, some include speech recognition and machine vision. In the story of Traditions, we are introduced with La Maquina, a AI robot who lives with a Mexican household family who serves as a maid essentially. "Y Mira, you're interested in cooking, in being a curandero, in learning her ways" (Gonzales, Kindle). The writing style in the story is engaging because of Gonzales focus on Mexican culture and traditions in this futuristic world. I believe in cases like these this benefits the family in functional aspect of living. Having a robot/assistant perform tasks around the house can be very helpful. Such as cleaning, babysitting, cooking this can allow for us humans to focus on more important things such as trying to live a healthy lifestyle and focusing on school or work. In the prologue to this story, the author talks about incorporating their tradition to today’s world. There is a rising conflict between Mictan and her grandmother. Grandma wants Mictan to live a certain life but does not agree to what she ultimately thinks about it. The robot seems to have a high-performance technology because of her communications and abilities we notice right away,