Introduction- John Searle is a Philosophy Professor who is known for his work in philosophy of the mind and language. He published an article on 1980 called Minds, Brains, and Programs, in which he uses a thought experiment to test the Schank’s program; the program aims to mimic the human’s ability to comprehend stories. The experiment Searle uses to test this theory of the mind is known as the “Chinese Room” thought experiment. The thought experiments, the objections, and the replies given in his article also enable us to draw conclusions about Turing’s “imitation game”. In this critical response, I will consider Searle’s refutation of the claims of strong artificial intelligence, and I will argue against his view that mental occurrences of
…show more content…
I don’t disagree with the idea that mental phenomena comes from physical-chemical properties of the brain, I disagree that all mental occurrences are dependent on these physical-chemical properties. Programs aren’t activated by physical-chemical properties but they allow machines to simulate certain human phenomena. While certain attributes such as understanding or the ability to feel are dependent on physical-chemical properties of the brain, other attributes can be done without relying on these properties. An example of those attributes are the human phenomena to respond or perceive. Machines know how to do these types of things because that is what they are programmed to do. The programming is done through the physical-chemical properties of the human who programmed, such as thinking and constructing, which gives these abilities to machines without passing over the same properties to machines. Machines are given the ability of certain human phenomena through the programs they occupy. Seeing how machines have these abilities goes to show that these phenomena aren’t dependent on physical-chemical properties of a human …show more content…
The main idea of this reply is that the only way you can recognize peoples understanding is by their behavior. Since human cognition is related to behavior and a computer is able to pass a behavioral test then it only makes sense to attribute cognition to computers as well. Searle’s reply to this is that they are focusing on the wrong problem. He says, “The problem ... is not about how I know that other people have cognitive states, but rather what it is that I am attributing to them when I attribute cognitive states to them” (Searle, 306). He believes that cognitive states aren’t necessary for the process of computations and the output it gives. He argues that biological structure is what causes us to understand and it gives us the capability to produce, “perception, action, understanding, learning” (Searle, 306). I agree with Searle’s reply because I don’t believe that a mental state should be attached to two different subjects just because they have one thing in common. Behavior is one thing but it isn’t the action that shows understanding as much as it is the certain attributes. A computer is able to pass off as a human because they have the ability to replicate behaviors and replies of humans. This connects Searle’s experiment to the Turing test. What the Chinese Room experiment shows us is that programming digital computers may give the computer the instantiation of the ability
I don’t disagree with the idea that mental phenomena comes from physical-chemical properties of the brain, I disagree that all mental occurrences are dependent on these physical-chemical properties. Programs aren’t activated by physical-chemical properties but they allow machines to simulate certain human phenomena. While certain attributes such as understanding or the ability to feel are dependent on physical-chemical properties of the brain, other attributes can be done without relying on these properties. An example of those attributes are the human phenomena to respond or perceive. Machines know how to do these types of things because that is what they are programmed to do. The programming is done through the physical-chemical properties of the human who programmed, such as thinking and constructing, which gives these abilities to machines without passing over the same properties to machines. Machines are given the ability of certain human phenomena through the programs they occupy. Seeing how machines have these abilities goes to show that these phenomena aren’t dependent on physical-chemical properties of a human …show more content…
The main idea of this reply is that the only way you can recognize peoples understanding is by their behavior. Since human cognition is related to behavior and a computer is able to pass a behavioral test then it only makes sense to attribute cognition to computers as well. Searle’s reply to this is that they are focusing on the wrong problem. He says, “The problem ... is not about how I know that other people have cognitive states, but rather what it is that I am attributing to them when I attribute cognitive states to them” (Searle, 306). He believes that cognitive states aren’t necessary for the process of computations and the output it gives. He argues that biological structure is what causes us to understand and it gives us the capability to produce, “perception, action, understanding, learning” (Searle, 306). I agree with Searle’s reply because I don’t believe that a mental state should be attached to two different subjects just because they have one thing in common. Behavior is one thing but it isn’t the action that shows understanding as much as it is the certain attributes. A computer is able to pass off as a human because they have the ability to replicate behaviors and replies of humans. This connects Searle’s experiment to the Turing test. What the Chinese Room experiment shows us is that programming digital computers may give the computer the instantiation of the ability