In his works, modern philosopher Steven Pinker attempts to discredit traditional beliefs about the soul. He uses information gathered about human biology and technological research to substantiate his claim that “our theory of mind is the source of the concept of the soul” (Slate, Ch 13). Pinker, specifically, questions theories about when the soul officially manifests and then argues against the notions that that the immaterial soul is the source of human intelligence. Pinker also responds to the criticisms of modern day social scientists. Research about both technology and human biology has come very far; science is answering what used to be unanswerable. There is an engrained psychological belief that bodies are invested with souls. Our …show more content…
Intelligence is often attributed to the idea that, as humans, we contain a soul. A commonly upheld belief is that our soul is something that we can’t touch or see but is nonetheless there. How does this apparent ‘ghost’ affect us physically then? How is it that our soul can be electrocuted or make us walk? Another theory is that the mind is made of some “extraordinary form of matter” like that which was used to build Pinocchio. Perhaps brain tissue, as this form, emits the mind? If we accept the fact that something physical and not immaterial allows humans to be intelligent, then perhaps it isn’t some unexplainable material, and instead it is the patterning of the material. The information is what is important, not some magic material or immaterial orb. Information and human intelligence do not come from sheer chance. Our mind’s ability to process information is distinctive. We can observe some sample of matter and recognize that as a symbol it carries information and as a matter is accomplishes something physical as well. Would it be possible to build a machine that could do something similar; a machine that can make marks that agree with real world events? Mathematician Alan Turing created a hypothetical machine with input and output symbols that could resemble any number of interpretations. The machine was able to use logic to make new true statements from the true statements it was given. Turing was …show more content…
Behavior is motivated by reasons, whereas physical events have causes. It is impossible to explain feelings and desires with biology and mathematics. Pinker disputes this, because although the mind is a mystery “the mental world can be grounded in the physical world by the concepts of information, computation, and feedback” (Slate, Ch 3). When we decide to sit in a certain chair or to text our best friend, the motivation is difficult to explain. Our memories and our beliefs are essentially just facts that are kept in a database, and our thoughts and plans are just systematic patterns. Our senses connect the mind to everything around us, and by doing so they cause physical energy and information to sync. This is the computational theory of the mind. The theory suggests that our minds are intelligent and rational information processors. If critics would like proof, then artificial intelligence is well on its way to showing the world that matter is capable of doing what the mind can. Computers are capable of so much nowadays; they can distinguish faces, organize data, solve equations, and so on. Those who are critical of this theory may point out that although computers can do simple input and output processing tasks, there still needs to be a human that uses the computer to make judgments, reflect, and even be creative. IBM created the
Andy Clark strongly argues for the theory that computers have the potential for being intelligent beings in his work “Mindware: Meat Machines.” The support Clark uses to defend his claims states the similar comparison of humans and machines using an array of symbols to perform functions. The main argument of his work can be interpreted as follows:
deep need to probe the mysterious space between human thoughts and what is a machine can
In this paper I will evaluate and present A.M. Turing’s test for machine intelligence and describe how the test works. I will explain how the Turing test is a good way to answer if machines can think. I will also discuss Objection (4) the argument from Consciousness and Objection (6) Lady Lovelace’s Objection and how Turing responded to both of the objections. And lastly, I will give my opinion on about the Turing test and if the test is a good way to answer if a machine can think.
The official foundations for "artificial intelligence" were set forth by A. M. Turing, in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" wherein he also coined the term and made predictions about the field. He claimed that by 1960, a computer would be able to formulate and prove complex mathematical theorems, write music and poetry, become world chess champion, and pass his test of artificial intelligences. In his test, a computer is required to carry on a compelling conversation with humans, fooling them into believing they are speaking with another human. All of his predictions require a computer to think and reason in the same manner as a human. Despite 50 years of effort, only the chess championship has come true. By refocusing artificial intelligence research to a more humanlike, cognitive model, the field will create machines that are truly intelligent, capable of meet Turing's goals. Currently, the only "intelligent" programs and computers are not really intelligent at all, but rather they are clever applications of different algorithms lacking expandability and versatility. The human intellect has only been used in limited ways in the artificial intelligence field, however it is the ideal model upon which to base research. Concentrating research on a more cognitive model will allow the artificial intelligence (AI) field to create more intelligent entities and ultimately, once appropriate hardware exists, a true AI.
Computers are well known for their ability to perform computations and follow a list of instructions, but can a computer be a mind? There are varying philosophical theories on what constitutes a mind. Some believe that the mind must be a physical object, and others believe in dualism, or the idea that the mind is separate from the brain. I am a firm believer in dualism, and this is part of the argument that I will use in the favor of Dennett. The materialist view however, would likely not consider Hubert to be a mind. That viewpoint believes that all objects are physical objects, so the mind is a physical part of a human brain, and thus this viewpoint doesn’t consider the mind and body as two separate things, but instead they are both parts of one object. The materialist would likely reject Hubert as a mind, even though circuit boards are a physical object, although even a materialist would likely agree that Yorick being separated from Dennett does not disqualify Yorick as a mind. If one adopts a dualism view and accept the idea that the mind does not have to be connected to a physical object, then one can make sense of Hubert being able to act as the mind of Dennett. The story told to us by Dennett, is that when the switch is flipped on his little box attached to his body, the entity that controls Dennett, changes to the other entity. Since the switches are not labeled, it is never known which entity is
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
In The Hungry Soul we find an interesting blend of subjects, methods, and traditions. This book is a fascinating exploration of the cultural and natural act of eating. Kass intensely reveals how the various aspects of this phenomenon, restrictions, customs, and rituals surrounding it, relate to collective and philosophical truths about the human being and its deepest pleasures. Kass argues throughout the book that eating (dining) is something that can either cultivate us or moralize us. My question is, does Kass succeed in arguing for the fact that eating is something that can moralize us as human beings? Although I agree with some of the things that Kass discussed in the book, in this paper I will argue mainly against some of his claims.
A review of Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works, in which McGinn elaborates on his theory of the mind.
“The Sweet Hereafter” portrays the grief stricken citizens of a remote Canadian town traumatized by a terrible accident, and the impact of an ambulance-chasing lawyer who is attempting to deal with the grief in his own life. The film also depicts the grieving subjects susceptibility to convert grief and guilt into both blame and monetary gain and the transformation this small community faces after such a devastating event.
The relationship of the human soul and physical body is a topic that has mystified philosophers, scholars, scientists, and mankind as a whole for centuries. Human beings, who are always concerned about their place as individuals in this world, have attempted to determine the precise nature or state of the physical form. They are concerned for their well-being in this earthly environment, as well as their spiritual well-being; and most have been perturbed by the suggestion that they cannot escape the wrongs they have committed while in their physical bodies.
There are two major religious beliefs on the soul, and though they may seem diametrically opposed, we must remember that our ideas on the soul exist only because of the conditioned acceptance of these religiou...
The traditional notion that seeks to compare human minds, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is self-defeating and it should be discredited in dialogs regarding the theory of artificial intelligence. This traditional notion is akin to comparing, in crude terms, cars and aeroplanes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviours of elements in the brain, and these behaviours in are adjudged by the biochemical composition of our brains, which are responsible for our thoughts and functions. When we discuss mental states of systems it is important to distinguish between human brains and that of any natural or artificial organisms which is said to have central processing systems (i.e. brains of chimpanzees, microchips etc.). Although various similarities may exist between those systems in terms of functions and behaviourism, the intrinsic intentionality within those systems differ extensively. Although it may not be possible to prove that whether or not mental states exist at all in systems other than our own, in this paper I will strive to present arguments that a machine that computes and responds to inputs does indeed have a state of mind, but one that does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This paper will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of human brains and yet they are indeed states of a mind resulting from various functions in their central processing systems.
In a time where science and materialism reign, the topic of the soul is rarely mentioned, ostensibly left in the past with the philosophers of old. Nichols, however, candidly broaches this difficult topic and gives new life to the argument that humans do indeed have an immaterial, immortal soul. Nichols summarizes several popular arguments for the existence of the soul as he builds his own argument, which discusses a soul as limited in relation to its environment as well as a soul that is one with the mind and a controller of the body. He discusses both the strengths and challenges to his argument, offering rebuttals to the challenges. Because this soul is the organizing principle of the body it is involved in the Resurrection as well, bridging the gap between the material and spiritual worlds. However, I disagree with Nichols’ assessment, instead choosing the side of materialism where an immaterial soul does not exist.
In the past few decades we have seen how computers are becoming more and more advance, challenging the abilities of the human brain. We have seen computers doing complex assignments like launching of a rocket or analysis from outer space. But the human brain is responsible for, thought, feelings, creativity, and other qualities that make us humans. So the brain has to be more complex and more complete than any computer. Besides if the brain created the computer, the computer cannot be better than the brain. There are many differences between the human brain and the computer, for example, the capacity to learn new things. Even the most advance computer can never learn like a human does. While we might be able to install new information onto a computer it can never learn new material by itself. Also computers are limited to what they “learn”, depending on the memory left or space in the hard disk not like the human brain which is constantly learning everyday. Computers can neither make judgments on what they are “learning” or disagree with the new material. They must accept into their memory what it’s being programmed onto them. Besides everything that is found in a computer is based on what the human brain has acquired though experience.
...ocesses which are distinct from observable behavioral responses. Acts such as thinking, remembering, perceiving, and willing are defined by behavioral actions and by dispositions to perform behavioral actions. However, Ryle criticises Behaviorist theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic, just as he criticizes Cartesian theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic. While Cartesian theory asserts that hidden mental processes cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual, Behaviorism asserts that stimulus-response mechanisms cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual. Ryle argues that both the Cartesian theory and the Behaviorist theory are too simplistic and mechanistic to enable us to fully understand the Concept of Mind.