Do inanimate technologies think? Do they genuinely have a consciousness and real knowledge or are they simply machines? Are they made up of just algorithms and math medical equations? This is the argument many philosophers and scientists have been arguing over for years. John Searle, who is a professor at University of California, Berkeley, believes that not just Watson, but all higher-level information holding technologies do not have an active consciousness. They are only products of the human brain’s ideas and programs. Even though many esteemed mechanisms may demonstrate extraordinary knowledge even beyond human recognition, I agree with Searle. Computers do not have original thought. They are the result of high cognitive thinking …show more content…
of the human brain programing. Watson, a computer built by IBM, is a computer created to play and compete against players in the popular game show Jeopardy!
In a February two thousand and eleven game, Watson competed against some of Jeopardy’s brightest stars Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings. Both Mr. Rutter and Jennings lost miserably against the super computer. Watson’s performance was almost flawless although it did make a few un-slightly mistakes. Anyway, the performance was superb, and was greeted as a scientific breakthrough of artificial intelligence in computers and intellectual technologies. Many people, including Jennings and Rutter stated that they were one of the first “knowledge-industry workers put out of work by the new generation of thinking …show more content…
machines”(1). Searle, unlike his peers, is not that impressed with Watson’s achievement. Searle agues that Watson actually doesn’t know anything about anything at all. Even though it carried out a great performance at Jeopardy it still is not a literal thinking machine. He even goes as far as to say that no computer for that matter could ever think like humans no matter how well it did on any rational task. Personally, I have to agree with Searle that Watson does not have pure thought. If you think about it computers are just made up of mathematical equations and decoded symbols. They don’t truly understand what the answers or questions mean but just spit back the information that they were programed to learn. Human brains are the ones that had to think of the programs and symbols that the computer has to go on. If the humans never understood this, how would the computer have come to such conclusions? They would have never on their own unless programed to. Even though Watson may be able to think faster and store more information in it’s data base then humans, that does not mean that it is by any means smarter then the human race or has an active consciousness.
Speed and storage space does not measure complete understanding. I refuse to believe that mechanical simulation and calculations are synonyms for human competence. The difference between a human brain and the mechanics in a computer is that the human brain causes understanding and gives reason and purpose to the things it learns. A computer, on the other hand, just computes. It has input and outputs that are programmed for the specific task. It will not on it’s own just be able to magically understand something and give it meaning. All it’s function is to ultimately do as it was programmed to. It will never understand why it knows what it knows or how it got to the point of knowledge, but only understands proper execution. If a computer or program makes a mistake it most likely has nothing to do with the machine it’s self, but with it’s creator who demonstrated the flaw in the first place. The computer has no idea it even made a misjudgment because it doesn’t have the capacity to really understand the inaccuracy.
Consciousness is not required for a machine to work. Machines are the product of human algorithms and mathematical coding. Like Searle said, Watson didn’t understand that it won Jeopardy or that it was playing at all. All Watson was programmed to do was
stimulate knowledge and act as if it understood the answers and questions. Computers cannot give or understand meaning, which aids to the conclusion that machines cannot think for themselves.
Computationalism: the view that computation, an abstract notion of materialism lacking semantics and real-world interaction, offers an explanatory basis for human comprehension. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss and compare different views regarding computationalism, and the arguments associated with these views. The two main arguments I feel are the strongest are proposed by Andy Clark, in “Mindware: Meat Machines”, and John Searle in “Minds, Brains, and Programs.”
deep need to probe the mysterious space between human thoughts and what is a machine can
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
Earl Rochester’s argument is to make drinking a privilege to say, with a drinking license. This will require a “drinker’s ed class,” because it's just like driver’s ed, you have to read a manual and then take a written test what will be next a drinking portion to see if you can handle this “privilege.” I strongly disagree with Mr. Rochester not because I believe in underage drinking or alcoholism but because of the mere fact that this drinking license will not help since no matter what obstacles adolescents and alcoholics will find a way to get their hands on alcohol.
The Chinese room argument certainly shows a distinction between a human mind and strong AI. However, it seems that the depths of human understanding can also be a weakness to how it compares to strong AI and the way that knowledge and understanding is derived.
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
Artificial Intelligence is a term not too widely used in today’s society. With today’s technology we haven’t found a way to enable someone to leave their physical body and let their mind survive within a computer. Could it be possible? Maybe someday, but for now it’s just in theory. The novel by William Gibson, Neuromancer, has touched greatly on the idea of artificial intelligence. He describes it as a world where many things are possible. By simply logging on the computer, it opens up a world we could never comprehend. The possibilities are endless in the world of William Gibson.
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.
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
John Markoff the author of “Computer wins on ‘Jeopardy!’: Trivial, It’s Not” discusses how Watson, an I.B.M computer the size of a room, takes down two former Jeopardy champions. Watson is leading the way for future development when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI) helping the workforce. Markoff discusses how this affects the future of AI as we know it, but he is also quick to point out that there are still flaws. Watson was developed by I.B.M. to specifically answer questions. Over a three day period Watson took on two former champions, one being Mr. Jennings known for winning 74 straight days and Mr. Rutter who is the all-time money winning champion on Jeopardy. This was not a stunt put on by I.B.M., they specifically wanted to show
The most common refutation to the notion of mental states in digital computers is that there are inherent limits of computation and that there are inabilities that exist in any algorithm to...
Strong AI says that a computer, if programmed correctly, literally has a mind. What is a mind? The mind enables a person to be aware of the world, to think, and to feel. It is the faculty of consciousness and thought. Humans have minds, even animals have minds. But to say that programmed robots have minds, like what strong AI says, is quite a stretch. The human mind and strong AI have all sorts of differences. For example, in the Chinese room experiment Searle says something along the lines that computers exploit formal symbols according to rules in the program. The human mind can learn things, it can be aware of what
To begin with, Watson was a supercomputer, which was programmed to compete in the game “Jeopardy!” Watson, a room-sized supercomputer competed against Ken Jennings, who is famous for successfully winning 74 games in a row on “Jeopardy!” and Brad Rutter. Watson was an early form of AI, which stands for artificial intelligence. Ultimately, Watson ended up winning the game of “Jeopardy!” which came with both positive and negative responses. Furthermore, Stanley Fish wrote a column in the New York Times stating his feelings about Watson. Fish believes that computers are nothing more than calculation. For example, he states, “It has a program [his computer] that directs it to finish words before I do by “consulting” a data base of words I have used that begin with the letters I have already typed. “Consulting” is in quotation marks because the computer isn’t doing anything that requires intelligence as opposed t...
We all know that computers can help a jumbo jet land safely in the worst of weather, aid astronauts in complex maneuvers in space, guide missiles accurately over vast stretches of land, and assist doctors and physicians in creating images of the interior of the human body. We are lucky and pleased that computers can perform these functions for us. But in doing them, computers show no intelligence, but merely carry out lengthy complex calculations while serving as our obedient helpers. Yet the question of whether computers can think, whether they are able to show any true intelligence has been a controversial one from the day humans first realized the full potential of computers. Exactly what intelligence is, how it comes about, and how we test for it have become issues central to computer science and, more specifically, to artificial intelligence. In searching for a domain in which to study these issues, many scientists have selected the field of strategic games. Strategic games require what is generally understood to a high level of intelligence, and through these games, researchers hope to measure the full potential of computers as thinking machines (Levy & Newborn 1).
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.