Functionalism Of The Turing Machine

In this article, Thompson’s uses chess anecdotes to make it easier to understand why technology and our brains work together best. Steven Cramton and Zackary Stephen were two New England men who beat the most powerful chess computer. “Why could these relative amateurs beat chess players with far more experience and raw talent? Because Cramton and Stephen were expert at collaborating with computers. They knew when to rely on human smarts and when to rely on the machine’s advice.” (345) This experience shows us that Thompson's thinks that when it comes to technology versus man, you don’t

Theories have been composed and exposed by various philosophers to clarify their reasoning about the mind. Dualism, Behaviorism, and Identity Theory, are well-known theories supported by well-written explanations. A modern theory, Functionalism provides ample insight to the main problem philosophers deal with, the mind/body problem.

I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.

Life, like war, compares to the game of chess. There are two sides, and they take turn moving their pieces in play. There is always a strategy for the final goal, victory, or the game could end in a stalemate. An endless possibility of moves exists for each player, keeping in mind the possible future actions of the opponent. This makes the game complex and difficult because each player does not know the intent, or exact move of the opponent. Each player must rely on instinct and judgment of their opponent to estimate the next action of the opponent. One must also account for the losses of pieces and the sacrifices needed in order to achieve victory. A game of chess between the United States and Japan started in July

The real problem is not whether machines think, but whether men do; B.F. Skinner. This quote rings true in today's world. Ray Bradbury predicted this particular problem with technology in his fiction novel The Pedestrian. Published in 1951, The Pedestrian predicts some of the problems society will have with technology in the future. Even in 1951 Ray Bradbury could see that technology is very addicting and hard on originality. For example, in The Pedestrian the whole city is inside watching their “viewing boxes. The main character Leonard is outside and gets arrested for taking a walk at night. In Leonard's world, him not wanting to be pacified by technology is “regressive”, and “regressive” behavior is scary.

The idea of Artificial Intelligence began as a mere philosophical idea, simply a puzzle that provided food for thought for curious minds. In the 1940's, however, with the invention of the first computers, the notion then had the means to transcend simple abstract speculation and became a rather alluring potential actuality and goal in the technological community. It was not until the 1950's, however, that the link between human intelligence and machines was really observed spawning a technological boom that would precipitate to immense proportions, entirely reshaping our daily lives. Today, "Researchers are creating systems which can mimic human thought, understand speech, beat the best human chess player, and countless other feats never before possible" (The History of AI 1). The rapid fervor to which the researchers latched on to the further development of this infant technology, coincides eerily to that of the intense desire Shelley portrayed in Victor as he literally emptied his entire soul and being into his obsession of creating life. As Victor so splendidly illustrates a quest of this sort and in this manner is blinding and for this reason scarily dangerous. For just as Victor stood dumbfounded and

“How will your family react, if they find out how you spend your nights here?” said Gil.

I do not think that a computer is smarter than me. Computer applications like chess are programmed with all possible movements and positions that can be applied in each situation. This doesn’t mean they’re smarter or that they can think. They just had someone, a human, program them into making the best move at the appropriate time.

I love chess as much as the next geek, but chess is often taken too seriously as a metaphor for leadership strategy. For all of its intricacies, chess is a game of defined rules that can be mathematically determined. It’s ultimately a game of boxes and limitations. A far better analogy to strategy is poker, not chess. Life is a game of probabilities, not defined rules. And often understanding your opponents is a much greater advantage than the cards you have in your hand. It was knowledge of his opponent that allowed Kirk to defeat Khan in Star Trek II by exploiting Khan’s two-dimensional thinking. Bluffs, tells, and bets are all a big part of real-life strategy. Playing that strategy with an eye to the psychology of our competitors, not just the rules and circumstances of the game can often lead to better outcomes than following the rigid lines of

Philosophy, meaning “Love of Wisdom” in Greek, is a comprehensive system of ideas about human nature and the nature of the reality we live in. (Brakas 1.) Though individual’s philosophical ideas were not always welcomed, it has been practiced since the earliest of existence. In this paper I will focus on functionalism and its positive and negative arguments. I will also construct an argument and demonstrate the properties of functionalism.

Functionalists tend to be restricted to inputs’ specification, as well as the outputs which are plausibly an integral of common-sense capacity (knowledge); Psychofunctionalists, however, are not under such restriction. Even if both the Functionalists and Psychofunctionalism emphasize on physical, or nonmental-specification over inputs and outputs, the requirement by Functionalists remains the externally observable classifications, for example, inputs whose characteristics assume the terms of the present objects within the organisms vicinity, expressed in body parts’ movements. On the other hand, Psychofunctionalists are at liberty to present a specification between inputs and outputs, assuming the internal parameters’ terms; for example, signals in input, as well as output neurons.

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

Functionalism has given a useful understanding of society, despite its limitations. Functionalists describe society using an organic analogy; they say society is like a biological organism. Parsons found three similarities between society and an organism. System organisms such as the human body and society are both self-regulating and inter-related, independent parts fit together in fixed ways. In the body these are organs; in society they are institutions, such as family and education. Both organisms have system needs for example an organism needs nutrition without which it would die. Social systems have basic needs for example members of society need to be socialised. Both society and organisms function to contribute to meeting the

Another part of chess theory is the middle game. The middle game is where games become most complicated. And for new players this is where the most blunders can occur. In the middle game calculating is also required, but a player with knowledge on “middle-game principles” and can apply them in his game has a better chance of winning a game. Most grandmasters have a common thought process in determining which moves are viable and should be inspected. The development of an “analysis tree” can benefit greatly in saving time and finding accurate moves to get an edge in games (Kotov, 2004).

AlphaGo (AI): A narrow AI developed by Google DeepMind in October 2015, to learn and play the board game ‘Go’ . It uses a decision tree algorithm for performing the moves, which it ‘learns’ using neural-networking, suggesting self-adaption through previous experiences.