Computers Can Not Have Minds

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

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.

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,

The Chinese Room is a mental experiment, originally proposed by John Searle and popularized by Roger Penrose, which attempts to counter the validity of the Turing Test and the belief that a machine can come to think. Searle faces the analogy between mind and computer when it comes to addressing the issue of consciousness. The mind involves not only the manipulation of symbols, but also has a syntax and a semantics. Searle in his Mind, Brain and programs text, attacks this thought, and with the China Room experiment he showed how a machine can perform an action without even understanding what it does and why it does it. Therefore according to Searle the logic used by computers is nothing more than one that

In this essay I will argue that digital computers are not capable of conscious thinking. First I will use Searle's argument to defend my view. I will then explain the features of consciousness that he talks about in order to use them against counterarguments.

The conditions of the present scenario are as follows: a machine, Siri*, capable of passing the Turing test, is being insulted by a 10 year old boy, whose mother is questioning the appropriateness of punishing him for his behavior. We cannot answer the mother's question without speculating as to what A.M. Turing and John Searle, two 20th century philosophers whose views on artificial intelligence are starkly contrasting, would say about this predicament. Furthermore, we must provide fair and balanced consideration for both theorists’ viewpoints because, ultimately, neither side can be “correct” in this scenario. But before we compare hypothetical opinions, we must establish operant definitions for all parties involved. The characters in

In Minds, Brains, and Programs John Searle objects to Computational Theory of Mind (CTM), particularly that running a program on a computer and manipulating symbols does not mean that the computer has understanding, or more generally a mind. In this paper I will first explain Searle’s Chinese Room, then I will explain CTM and how it relates to the Chinese Room. Following this I will describe how the Chinese Room attacks the CTM. Next I will explain the Systems Reply to the Chinese Room and how the Systems Reply actually undermines Searle’s conclusion in the Chinese Room. Then I will describe Searle’s response to the Systems Reply and how that response undermines the Systems Reply. Lastly, I will evaluate Searle’s reply to the Systems Reply and defend the Systems Reply against the points Searle raises against the Systems Reply.

In today’s society, artificial intelligence appears a daunting and frightening area, however this idea was embraced by Turing. He was a pioneer of imitation, that is, the imitation of the human mind in a machine. The perspectives of Turing with regards to artificial intelligence were new and original, nobody had questioned whether or not a machine can think or likened one to the human mind. It is important to remember that artificial intelligence is only an attempt at recreating the human machine, as Turing put it, which is the mind. In 1942, Turing was quoted saying: “We do not wish to penalise the machine for its inability to shine in beauty competitions, nor to penalise a man for losing in a race against an aeroplane” which demonstrates one of Turing’s key perspectives. Man and machine are going to be different, an attempt at copying the human mind, will not yield a human, but a machine, reinforcing the fact that artificial intelligence is only an attempt to imitate the mind. A paper, written by Turing, outlines an “imitation test,” a test which contrasts the power of the human mind to that of a machine. This test was developed by Turing in order to help the public grasp the concept of an artificial intelligence: it precedes as follows. A participant is asked to take part in two conversations, one of which is with a machine, the other with a human. Now imagine if the participant was unable to decide which was the machine and which was human. Turing

Alan Turing’s test attempts to answer the question of whether or not a machine can behave like a human. In this test, a machine and a human are placed in an enclosure, separate from the interrogator. The objective of the machine is to trick the interrogator into thinking it's a person by means of typewritten communication. By limiting communication to text only, Turing filters out any

“Thinking” has become so casual in our everyday lives that we sometimes take it for granted and never really think about the process of “thinking”. What does it mean to “think”? What qualities do one need to meet to be considered “capable of thinking”? Being a human involves thinking and thinking involves experiences and emotions. In his paper, Turing questions these traits and brings in new theories to support his statement that machines are capable of thinking, using his imitation game as an example. I would have to disagree with these views and further disagree with the idea that the imitation game can be used to prove a machine’s intelligence.

While there are modern philosophers who believe that computers are capable of thought, there are also others who disagree. In order to determine whether a computer meets Plato’s criteria of thought, it is important to identify the relevance of the arguments made to Plato’s ideas of intelligible realities, to the sensible imitations of the forms, and to the concept of thought.

John Searle formulated the Chinese Room Argument in the early 80’s as an attempt to prove that computers are not cognitive operating systems. In short though the immergence of artificial and computational systems has rapidly increased the infinite possibility of knowledge, Searle uses the Chinese room argument to shown that computers are not cognitively independent.

John Searle is an American philosopher who was known for creating the thought experiment, the Chinese room for challenging the idea of strong AI and functionalism. Searle’s work, Minds, Brains and Programs introduces the Chinese room and refutes some objections to the points he brings up.

Searle’s, The Chinese Room Argument, asks, if a computer can use data to output answers does that computer understand? In Searle’s experiment, he acts as a computer and is given translations of Chinese symbols. He states that even though he can find the appropriate translations for the symbols and output answers he still does not understand Chinese. Prior to my previous argument, I look to investigate in what instance can the computer be thought of as an understanding machine. In order to do this, I must investigate the following: what are the components necessary for understanding, why humans are thought of as understanding beings, and can we duplicate such things in a machine. The Chinese Room experiment is extremely basic, but given more inputs, can the computer think beyond its coded formulas. Searle concludes that Strong AI is not independent intelligence, that it is just simulation of intelligence, and although machines can act highly intelligent what separates them from humans is the notion of intentionality. Humans who are seen as having the ability to form representations, do so through experience. But what is it about the formation of experience that cannot be duplicated and why is it necessary to have such systems in place to be deemed an intelligent, understanding, and a thinking being.

Substantial studying has been made on the subject and Turing’s overly optimistic point of view, yet, we experience difficulty when trying to combine idea of advancement in technology and what makes us humans: the capability of thinking. Conventionally, we have firmly grasp to the idea that the act of thinking is the official stamp of authenticity which differentiate humans from the rest of beings, and so while trying to decide if a computer can think or not, we are closely scrutinizing the foundation of our nature as beings to its core. But before we dive into the subject matter of why I disagree with Turing, we must inquire about what exactly is thinking. Some have tried to define thinking as having conscious thoughts; but thinking and consciousness are not terminologies that are mutually exchangeable. While thinking is a state of consciousness, consciousness is not thinking. Even as we process information necessary for reasoning, much of our brain activity and processing takes