Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique chinese room argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critique chinese room argument
Introduction: The movie “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” talks about the artificial intelligence are approaching humans feeling in the future. The main character is a robot boy, David, has been programmed to love. When he was activated the codes, he exists, because his job is love his mother and be loved by her. Does David really love his mother? In fact, he does not love and does not feel love. He simply reflects his coding. Are machines available to think intelligently? To act like a human, to think like a human, to understand the meaning from the words like human do? Do machines have a mind? Many films showed audiences that robot have a mind, which pretended they have a mental state (such as emotions, consciousness, …show more content…
The Chinese Room Argument aims to refute a certain conception of the role of computation in human cognition.
“The aim of the Chinese room example was to try to show this by showing that as soon as we put something. into the system that really does have intentionality (a man), and we program him with the formal program, you can see that the formal program carries no additional intentionality. It adds nothing, for example, to a man's ability to understand Chinese.” In order to understand the argument, we have to understand the differences between strong AI and Weak AI. According to Strong AI, a computer program achieves the systems properly and correctly. Strong AI have the same meaning of cognition, understanding, thinking, memory, etc. Weak Artificial Intelligent claims that only the computer is the study of human cognition as a useful tool. As it is a useful tool in the study of many scientific fields. The cognitive simulation computer program will help us to understand in the same way cognitive, biological process simulation computer program or economic processes will help us understand these processes. In contrast, according to strong AI, the correct emulation is indeed a record. According to weak AI, the correct simulation is a model of 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:
A major falling point of robots and machines when placed in a human’s position is that robots cannot improvise. Robots can only do what they are programmed to do. if Damasio is right, emotions are ‘improvised’ by the human brain even before someone is conscious of what they are feeling. Therefore it is even harder to make machines feel true emotions. An example of this exists in Ray Bradbury’s short story “August 2026.” A completely automated house survives after nuclear warfare has devastated the Earth. Cheerful voices go on announcing schedules and birth dates, the stove prepares steaming hot food right on time, and robotic mice keep the house spotless and free of dust- in eerie contrast to the barren and destroyed city surrounding it. The house lets nothing in, closing its shutters even to birds, but lets in a sick and famished stray dog, which limps into the house and dies. The robotic mice think nothing of the dead dog but a mess that needed cleaning up: “Delicately sensing decay at last, the regiments of mice hummed out as softly as blown gray leaves in an electrical wind. Two-fifteen. The dog was gone. In the cellar, the incinerator glowed suddenly and a whirl of sparks leaped up the chimney.” The house, seeming so cheerful, caring for its attendants, has no compassion or reverence for the dog. The mice were programmed to clean up messes, and nothing beyond. This is why in science
One of the key questions raised by Rupert Sheldrake in the Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, is are we more than the ghost in the machine? It is perfectly acceptable to Sheldrake that humans are more than their brain, and because of this, and in actual reality “the mind is indeed extended beyond the brain, as most people throughout most of human history have believed.” (Sheldrake, Seven Experiments 104)
Searle's argument delineates what he believes to be the invalidity of the computational paradigm's and artificial intelligence's (AI) view of the human mind. He first distinguishes between strong and weak AI. Searle finds weak AI as a perfectly acceptable investigation in that it uses the computer as a strong tool for studying the mind. This in effect does not observe or formulate any contentions as to the operation of the mind, but is used as another psychological, investigative mechanism. In contrast, strong AI states that the computer can be created so that it actually is the mind. We must first describe what exactly this entails. In order to be the mind, the computer must be able to not only understand, but to have cognitive states. Also, the programs by which the computer operates are the focus of the computational paradigm, and these are the explanations of the mental states. Searle's argument is against the claims of Shank and other computationalists who have created SHRDLU and ELIZA, that their computer programs can (1) be ascribe...
John Searle’s Chinese room argument from his work “Minds, Brains, and Programs” was a thought experiment against the premises of strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). The premises of conclude that something is of the strong AI nature if it can understand and it can explain how human understanding works. I will argue that the Chinese room argument successfully disproves the conclusion of strong AI, however, it does not provide an explanation of what understanding is which becomes problematic when creating a distinction between humans and machines.
... that this artificial intelligence is not only capable of true reasoning ability but is also self-aware, for instance having feelings or motives. The HAL 9000 character demonstrates both of these implications of strong artificial intelligence numerous times throughout the film 2001: A Space Odyssey and multiple examples were given earlier. The HAL 9000 presents the capability of true reasoning very subtly during a chess match with a crewmember named Dave by cleverly obtaining check mate rather than obtaining in the faster and more “computational way”. HAL’s self-awareness is also demonstrated when he indicates feelings of paranoia and when he intentionally kills members of the crew due to unclear motives, yet feelings nonetheless were evident. Overall the fictional character the HAL 9000 is most certainly an example of strong artificial intelligence, or “Strong AI”.
Computers are machines that take syntactical information only and then function based on a program made from syntactical information. They cannot change the function of that program unless formally stated to through more information. That is inherently different from a human mind, in that a computer never takes semantic information into account when it comes to its programming. Searle’s formal argument thus amounts to that brains cause minds. Semantics cannot be derived from syntax alone. Computers are defined by a formal structure, in other words, a syntactical structure. Finally, minds have semantic content. The argument then concludes that the way the mind functions in the brain cannot be likened to running a program in a computer, and programs themselves are insufficient to give a system thought. (Searle, p.682) In conclusion, a computer cannot think and the view of strong AI is false. Further evidence for this argument is provided in Searle’s Chinese Room thought-experiment. The Chinese Room states that I, who does not know Chinese, am locked in a room that has several baskets filled with Chinese symbols. Also in that room is a rulebook that specifies the various manipulations of the symbols purely based on their syntax, not their semantics. For example, a rule might say move the squiggly
Margaret Boden’s “Artificial Intelligence: Cannibal or Missionary” is a credible primary source article rebutting common concerns of artificial intelligence. Boden uses strong logic to combat against the thought of artificial intelligence making humans less special and artificial intelligence causing people to be dehumanized. Boden concludes that dehumanization and people finding themselves less special from AI are false and that other concerns include people overlying on AI.
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.
For years philosophers have enquired into the nature of the mind, and specifically the mysteries of intelligence and consciousness. (O’Brien 2017) One of these mysteries is how a material object, the brain, can produce thoughts and rational reasoning. The Computational Theory of Mind (CTM) was devised in response to this problem, and suggests that the brain is quite literally a computer, and that thinking is essentially computation. (BOOK) This idea was first theorised by philosopher Hilary Putnam, but was later developed by Jerry Fodor, and continues to be further investigated today as cognitive science, modern computers, and artificial intelligence continue to advance. [REF] Computer processing machines ‘think’ by recognising information
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.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a Steven Spielberg science fiction drama film, which tells the story of a younger generation robot, David, who yearns for his human mother’s love. David’s character stimulates the mind-body question. What is the connection between our “minds” and our bodies? It is apparent that we are personified entities, but also, that we embrace “more” than just our bodies. “Human persons are physical, embodied beings and an important feature of God’s intended design for human life” (Cortez, 70).
Well as I said we first must define ‘to think’. What does that mean? Webster’s New Compact Dictionary defines ‘think’ as "1. Have a mind. 2. Believe. 3. Employ the mind.". It defines mind as ‘to think’. So does this mean that if you can think does this mean you have a mind? My opinion is that, according to this definition, computers can think. A computer can give you an answer to the question ‘What is 4x13?’, so it can think. What’s that? You say it’s just programmed to do that, if no one programmed it wouldn’t be able to do that. Well how did you know how to answer the question? Your teacher or parent’s or someone taught it to you. So you were programmed, same as the computer was.
I don’t think there is any reason for these robots to have every ability that a human does. There is no way they are going to have the intelligence a human does. Artificial Intelligence is just going to bring more harm into our communities. We can’t trust the robots doing the “everyday” human activities, they are going to lead to unemployment, and will lead to laziness causing more obesity.
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.