John Searle’s Case against Artificial Intelligence: ‘Only a Machine Could Think’ Introduction Searle’s (1980) reply to the query “Could a machine think?” by saying, “… only a machine could think” (p. 417, 431) could be easily misconstrued to mean that Searle’s reply is affirmative…
Download file to see previous pages...
Summary of Searle’s Claim Searle’s (1980) reply to the query: “Could a machine think?” is built on two propositions, which he stated as follows: “(1) Intentionality in human beings (and animals) is a product of causal features of the brain. (2) Instantiating a computer program is never by itself a sufficient condition of intentionality.” Searle explains that the strict logical consequence of his first two propositions is (3) the explanation that the manner by which the brain produces intentionality invalidates the claim that intentionality is also produced by instantiating a computer program. Hence, a computer program cannot produce intentionality. He furthers that the trivial consequence of his first proposition is (4) the need to possess causal powers similar with those of the brain to enable any mechanism to produce intentionality. Hence, a machine should have a human-like brain to be able to think. Lastly, he explains that what follows to his propositions 2 and 4 is the proposition (5) that any literal attempt to create intentionality through artificial way would fail to do so if it will only design programs like the AI; what it needs to succeed is to recreate the human brain’s causal powers. ...
Hence proposition (1) can be stated as human beings have intentionality because they have the causal powers of the brain. This way of saying it is to state Searle’s argument in another way – that intentionality is the mental activity that human beings are capable of doing because of the causal powers of the human brain that they biologically possess; for a machine to think it must have intentionality which can only be possible through having the causal powers of the brain. Hence, not unless the machine has the causal powers of the brain similar to human beings, the machine could not think. Thus, to say that AI, as what functionalism and computationalism persistently assert, can fully think – with the understanding that thinking here has intentionality – is short of saying that AI can also be human beings – a claim that obviously Searle does not want to accept, rejecting every possibility that AI could think and consistently defending his position that intentionality is a mental characteristic inherent to human beings. Actually, AI’s claim seems harmless, but perhaps Searle has perceived its dangerous implication that’s why he obstinately opposes it. Hence on his part, Searle simplifies his proposition (1) in a way that does not allow an AI to become capable of thinking: “… certain brain processes are sufficient for intentionality” (p. 417). Searle’s way of simplifying his proposition (1) is to emphasize his point that intentionality requires necessary causal features of the brain that is far more than the information processing system that computationalism is so proud of or the formal symbol manipulation of functionalism, because these causal features of the brain are in fact
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Philosophy of mind Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1491762-philosophy-of-mind
(Philosophy of Mind Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words)
“Philosophy of Mind Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1491762-philosophy-of-mind.
He adds that it is not reason that compels somebody to do anything because have enough reason wills a person to do something but it does not force him to do it (Searle, p.26). In all decisions that we have to make therefore, there exists a gap between the actions that we take and the reasons for it.
He said that the essence of body is extension & the essence of mind is thought. He says that the mind thinks about every other thing in the universe & everything which is into being proves its existence. He said that our mind is not a material object but an intellectual thinking thing & our body is material & behaves like an ordinary matter which occupies space & has weight.
From simple facts and observations, complex ideas are then formed through various cognitive processes such as simplification and abstraction. This process is called empiricism. Therefore, Plato’s claim that the mind is born with knowledge is false. Locke furthered that information is gained through a person’s faculties.
Essentially, prior to discerning the chief grounds on why distinctions must be drawn between ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing that’, one has to figure readily that ‘knowing how’ is inclined to constitute a bulk of performances or executions made whereas ‘knowing that’ is in reference to a set or collection of theories known.
Therefore, since people who download music over the Internet are taking licensed property without paying for it, it is stealing. Some people might not see it a stealing, as it is taking something that is relatively intangible, as opposed to actually taking a piece of solid property from the rightful owner, but it is stealing, nonetheless because it is taking something of value without paying for it.
With its central place in philosophy—embedded in between the two most basic theoretical sciences—the philosophy of mind possess a grand importance in deciding various issues relating to psychology, biology, physics, and more. In the past few centuries, since the
cartes’ theory of dualism defines the body to be simply an extended and non thinking thing and the self simply as a thinking and non extended thing Heidegger argues that there is no such origin beyond the origin of the self. Descartes’ explanation can be understood by pure
ists, because most of first scientists and explorers were philosophers, it turns out that learning philosophy is useful for anyone, which devaluates the importance of philosophy for psychologists, and especially its brunch that concerns mind. Though if to explore psychology more
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Philosophy of mind for FREE!