Minds and Machines, an oxymoron?
Can machines think? This question, addressed by Descartes and Turing, leads to discussion of how thought is constructed and what is the mind made of. At the heart of the debate, there is a schism between Cartesian dualism and functionalism. Language is a method considered by both sides as evidence of thought and provides the test for intelligence. This essay will look at Descartes’ objections and Turing’s arguments for whether machine can ever think. This essay will argue that Turing’s, and the functionalist, view is correct. It questions whether Turing’s test provides sufficient evidence of machine intelligence, and uses Searle’s Chinese room to explain why intentionality matters.
Functionalism and
…show more content…
107). This is influential in Descartes’s beliefs and scepticism towards machines thinking. On the other hand, Turing has a more functionalist view of the human mind. This philosophy believes different types of substances could be considered a mind, if it can perform the functional role similar to that of the human mind (Study guide, p. 112). Despite these differences, both consider the use of a language test to prove machine intelligence. Turing believes that a computer has the potential to pass the test, and proposed any machine that can pass his Turing test can think. On the other hand, Descartes thought it was impossible for a machine to pass this test (Study guide, p. 105)
Descartes’ objections to machines thinking
Descartes thought that a machine would not be able to communicate like a human. He argues that a machine engaging in conversation with a human would be incapable of providing meaningful answers (Study guide, p. 105). Descartes would have no conception of modern computer and programming in the 17th century. Machines simply cannot engage with language like humans can and this reflects machines not being to understand language directed to it. One major fault with his premise is that it assumes thought manifests itself in human language. He thought they would be incapable the correct assortment of words for any given conversation (Study guide, p. 105). This test would mean that animals cannot think, or a human raised away from human society
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.
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
About a century after Descartes voiced his theories about the mind and the human body, La Mettrie responded with a controversial standpoint. In his Man a Machine, La Mettrie states how humans don’t exhibit any traits that differentiate them between animals or more importantly machine. For this essay’s purpose, the importance comes from looking at the relationship between body and mind. In La Mettrie’s first paragraphs he mentions his contrasting belief to the Cartesian idea of this
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
In Part V of his Discourse, Descartes continues his argument for reasoning being the essence of humanity by arguing that non-human animals and machines cannot reason, and therefore reasoning must be solely attributed to humans. Descartes presents two tests to determine whether or not a being is human or non-human, both based on the adaptability of the being’s responses. He first asserts that since machines and non-human animals cannot communicate via spoken
There were those who did not agree with Turing’s belief that computers would one day pass the Turing Test or that artificial intelligence could be created. A philosopher by the name of Lady Lovlace challenged Turing’s theory. She argued that machines could never learn and adapt and so nothing creative could ever come from a machine. She claimed that machines
Briefly reconstruct John Searle's argument against the Turing Test as a measure of intelligence and discuss whether or not you agree with Searle's conclusion that algorithmic machines lack understanding. Why do you agree or disagree? Your paper should be 5 double spaced pages with no more than 12-point type.
Descartes is able to examine ideas and gain knowledge form them. Innate ideas mean they are present at birth, in other words we are implanted with certain ideas at our creation. He often uses ‘innate ideas’ to explain the mind’s original programming. “An infant’s mind is programmed with the rules of logic. Consider as an example the valid rule, modus ponens. Let P and Q stand for variables… the rules states that, if P then Q is true and P is true, then it follows that Q is true. We know that we are programmed with this rule because young children, who have never studied logic and have never entertained the rule, when given an argument in which the variables above are replaced by actual sentences, are able to intuit the validity of the argument.” Descartes believed our minds are programmed with eternal truths, “Whatever comes into existence must have been brought into existence by something else.” He also discovers that the idea of God is only part of his initial programming but also that God, operating through secondary sources such as his parents, is the programmer.
The purpose of this paper is to present John Searle’s Chinese room argument in which it challenges the notions of the computational paradigm, specifically the ability of intentionality. Then I will outline two of the commentaries following, the first by Bruce Bridgeman, which is in opposition to Searle and uses the super robot to exemplify his point. Then I will discuss John Eccles’ response, which entails a general agreement with Searle with a few objections to definitions and comparisons. My own argument will take a minimalist computational approach delineating understanding and its importance to the concepts of the computational paradigm.
Descartes is a mind-body dualist, who in the Discourse on Method argues that humans are the only species that have a mind and intelligence. He states that animals are different in nature than humans and uses different arguments to defend his position. In this essay, I discuss Descartes effort to show that humans are distinct from machines and animals. He presents two tests to determine if a machine is a human and I will establish my view on each test.
Throughout his work Discourse on the Method, Rene Descartes discusses the things he believes to be true concerning thought. He discusses the things which he believes to be more perfect and the things which he believes to be less perfect (pt 2, para 1). When comparing the two, he eventually comes to the conclusion that things that are more perfect are constructed by fewer hands and have specific purpose (pt 2, para 1). He also introduces in the opening portion of his work that his opinion of good sense is the ability to judge rightly and to follow through with the judgments (pt. 1, para 1). He concludes his writing by explaining that he believes that thinking is a non-mechanistic action, and he makes several points to confirm this (pt. 5, para 10). Descartes makes claims that sometimes compare thinking to the workings of a machine. However, he is correct in saying that thinking is a non-mechanistic action. Because human beings’ thought processes are not mechanical, we must take care to use good sense in order to make right judgment.
(The matrix 55:24-55:34) “Cogito Ergo Sum” – Rene Descartes (Palmer, 6th edition, pg. 62). This evolutionary simple yet complex rational claim was the first indubitable answer that the great Philosopher Rene Descartes uses as the certain foundation of all knowledge. Nerveless this is an important concept to the movie “The Matrix” for although the matrix can deceive the mind, the only “thing” that the computer-generated simulation of reality cannot simulate, is the thoughts of the living. Therefore, leading the conclusion that Descartes claim, “he’s a thinking thing” (Palmer, 6th edition, pg. 62) also is truth in the
This essay proved through a series of evidence that Brian Aldiss communicates in “Who Can Replace a Man” that machines are ultimately dependent on human intelligence. The machines argue logically but then shut down, obey human orders, and do not start working without receiving orders from the radio operated by
Alan Turing put this argument forward in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence”. His opening pages of the paper begin with the words; "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?” (Alan Turing 1950). My main argument to this is that a computer does not have the ability to think, primarily because it was created rather than ‘born and raised’.
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