On the question whether machines can think, Descartes and Turing are in
Strong disagreement. Evaluate the arguments on either side. Does Searle's 'Chinese Room' argument help resolve the debate?
The question of the potential of thinking machines has both been addressed by Descartes and Turing. At the heart of the debate, the question of language and how thought can be constructed, remains the major point of difference. The essay will look at Turing’s argument for machines thinking and Descartes’ disbelief in machines ever being able to think. The essay will argue that Searle’s China room can only suggest that passing the Turing test is not evidence of intelligence, not that it resolves the debate.
Materialism and Dualism
Much of the debate around whether machines can think relies on whether the mind is physical or non-physical. If the human mind and thoughts can be understood in physical terms, there is a potential for it to be created or mimicked by humans in the form of machines. Dualists believe that the world can be separate into the physical and non-physical/mental (103). Descartes is a dualist who asserts that the mind and body as distinct things. This is important to note as Descartes rejects materialism and the idea that human thought can be understood by purely mechanical processes (107). This is …show more content…
He argues that machines do not act from reason like humans do and are limited by the “disposition of their organs” (105). Human reason is seen as a “universal instrument” that can be used in many situations, whereas machines are limited by the amount of organs (105). Machines must be programmed for each act they do and therefore require more organs than possible to match human for a variety of situation. Turing would argue that humans do not have unlimited cognitive ability, or it hasn’t been proven at least, and therefore it is not required for machines to have unlimited capacity
Strong disagreement. Evaluate the arguments on either side. Does Searle's 'Chinese Room' argument help resolve the debate?
The question of the potential of thinking machines has both been addressed by Descartes and Turing. At the heart of the debate, the question of language and how thought can be constructed, remains the major point of difference. The essay will look at Turing’s argument for machines thinking and Descartes’ disbelief in machines ever being able to think. The essay will argue that Searle’s China room can only suggest that passing the Turing test is not evidence of intelligence, not that it resolves the debate.
Materialism and Dualism
Much of the debate around whether machines can think relies on whether the mind is physical or non-physical. If the human mind and thoughts can be understood in physical terms, there is a potential for it to be created or mimicked by humans in the form of machines. Dualists believe that the world can be separate into the physical and non-physical/mental (103). Descartes is a dualist who asserts that the mind and body as distinct things. This is important to note as Descartes rejects materialism and the idea that human thought can be understood by purely mechanical processes (107). This is …show more content…
He argues that machines do not act from reason like humans do and are limited by the “disposition of their organs” (105). Human reason is seen as a “universal instrument” that can be used in many situations, whereas machines are limited by the amount of organs (105). Machines must be programmed for each act they do and therefore require more organs than possible to match human for a variety of situation. Turing would argue that humans do not have unlimited cognitive ability, or it hasn’t been proven at least, and therefore it is not required for machines to have unlimited capacity