I 'm Sorry Dave. I 'm Afraid I Can 't do That
Our brain can be described as a system capable of complex operations and computational, similar to a computer system which are both capable of cognition. I will explain the idea of cognition and discuss intentionality and rationality. Additionally, the Windmill Argument will be explored as it relates not only to intentionality and rationality, but also to the Computational Theory of Mind and how the existence of computer systems challenges the validity of the argument. Cognition is achieved by a system (real or artificial) if it can undergo “rational transitions between intentional states”. In order to fully grasp this concept, one must learn what is meant by intentionality and rationality. According …show more content…
The first asserts that physical objects do not have cognitive states (are only physical). The second elaborates that if a set of objects do not have cognition, then nothing that is made up of that set of objects alone can therefore have cognition or cognitive states. These two premises lead to the conclusion that nothing that is solely made up of fundamentally physical objects can have cognitive states. The conclusion that the Windmill Argument makes is not compatible with the idea of Physicalism. This is because, physicalism states that all things that have cognitive states are composed of fundamentally physical objects. This cannot be true if physical objects are incapable of having cognitive states according to the Windmill Argument. Physicalism can also not be true because physical objects do not have intentionality (according to the Windmill Argument) and the dynamics of the laws that govern the physical are not the same dynamics of the idea of rationality.
The motivations for the second premise of the Windmill Argument can be further explained if you consider rationality. If a set of objects cannot have cognition, then there is no way for them to be subject to rational evaluation. Because we are committed to seeing behavior as done for a reason, without cognitive states, an object does not have …show more content…
The answer that it offers however is very limited as it is only one circumstance of this cognitive phenomenon and the cognition that a computer is capable of is still only is capable as the human minds that create the algorithms by which the machines function. For this view to be fully developed a computer’s cognitive abilities would have to reach beyond what a human mind has previously programmed it to be capable of. This sort of view would involve the creation of AI systems that would be capable of cognitive states apart from what was already determinate via an algorithm or
Our brain can be described as a system capable of complex operations and computational, similar to a computer system which are both capable of cognition. I will explain the idea of cognition and discuss intentionality and rationality. Additionally, the Windmill Argument will be explored as it relates not only to intentionality and rationality, but also to the Computational Theory of Mind and how the existence of computer systems challenges the validity of the argument. Cognition is achieved by a system (real or artificial) if it can undergo “rational transitions between intentional states”. In order to fully grasp this concept, one must learn what is meant by intentionality and rationality. According …show more content…
The first asserts that physical objects do not have cognitive states (are only physical). The second elaborates that if a set of objects do not have cognition, then nothing that is made up of that set of objects alone can therefore have cognition or cognitive states. These two premises lead to the conclusion that nothing that is solely made up of fundamentally physical objects can have cognitive states. The conclusion that the Windmill Argument makes is not compatible with the idea of Physicalism. This is because, physicalism states that all things that have cognitive states are composed of fundamentally physical objects. This cannot be true if physical objects are incapable of having cognitive states according to the Windmill Argument. Physicalism can also not be true because physical objects do not have intentionality (according to the Windmill Argument) and the dynamics of the laws that govern the physical are not the same dynamics of the idea of rationality.
The motivations for the second premise of the Windmill Argument can be further explained if you consider rationality. If a set of objects cannot have cognition, then there is no way for them to be subject to rational evaluation. Because we are committed to seeing behavior as done for a reason, without cognitive states, an object does not have …show more content…
The answer that it offers however is very limited as it is only one circumstance of this cognitive phenomenon and the cognition that a computer is capable of is still only is capable as the human minds that create the algorithms by which the machines function. For this view to be fully developed a computer’s cognitive abilities would have to reach beyond what a human mind has previously programmed it to be capable of. This sort of view would involve the creation of AI systems that would be capable of cognitive states apart from what was already determinate via an algorithm or