Different Views On The Physicalism And Features Of Them - Essay Example

Different Views On The Physicalism And Features Of Them Jackson’s Knowledge Argument Jackson believes that knowledge argument is not based on dubious claims like one cannot logically imagine something until you sense it (Frank 292). For example, that you cannot imagine red color until you sense it. When Mary is confined, she could not imagine of a red color because she never sensed it. However, if physicalism is true, she could have known them, and no greater power of imagination would have been called for. Secondly, knowledge intentionality does not deliver the point home. The argument is too not based on false assumptions like if r knows that b is d, and if b=q, then r knows that d is q. this is concerned with Mary’s total nature of body of knowledge when she is still under confinement. If this was the case with Mary, then the physicalism threats would not be there. Following such logical consequences and physical knowledge would have helped her know everything about the outside world. On the other hand, Mary lacked knowledge of physicalism, which is also against the knowledge argument. This is knowledge about other people’s experiences; apart from what she was experiencing (Frank293). She gets new experiences when she is released, about color red as such facts were not there for her to know, something she had never known before. Though physicalism can argue that she got to learn that after her release, knowledge argument still will not agree with it. The problem with physicalism is that Mary learns of her impoverishment when she learns new things after her release. There are three things that Jackson learns from Mary’s experience. First, Mary knows physical about other people that there is to know before her release. However, she does not know all physical things about other people before her release because she learns some new knowledge about other people upon her release. Therefore, Jackson concludes that that there exists some truth about her and other people which escape the story of physicalism (Frank 295). Lewis’ Response to the Argument Lewis believes that on her release, Mary neither learns nor acquires knowledge in the sense that is relevant. This is because, the premise case argues that though, on her release, she learns something, which is knowledge she did not have beforehand, what she knew whether in description, acquaintance, or whatever, it was incomplete (Franc 294). According to Lewis, the only difference is that she did not learn it in a relevant sense. He says that what Mary learns when she is released is only an imaginative ability or a certain representation about knowledge. Therefore, she learns the knowledge of how, rather than that of that. Hence, physicalism can argue that Mary acquires a very significant kind of knowledge that cannot be denied without admission that her first factual knowledge was defective. Lewis believes that she knew everything she needed to know about other people’s experiences beforehand. The only thing she was lacking while under confinement was only the ability, which she got after being released. Problems with Lewis’ Response The problems with Lewis’ response are that they are so much glued into physicalism. He argues that Mary knew everything before she was released, and the only thing she was lacking was ability, which is not a strong argument against knowledge argument. If Mary knew everything, she could not have learnt about her impoverishment when she saw a red tomato. She could at least have seen something that she knew about it but in this case, she was hardly aware of the existence of such a thing. Seeing a red tomato would have helped her know more about red if she had had an experience like that one. Like many of us, Lewis says that Mary’s problem is that she was not sure of how to effectively demonstrate its errors. Mary hardly knows if she knows everything that other people know, or if she is just indulging herself in a generalization that is wild from one case (Frank 294). Lewis’ Versus Jackson’s Argument Lewis’ does not provide sufficient reason to reject Jackson’s argument. Jackson’s argument is stronger since it is only one sided, about physicalism, while that of Jackson addresses the two sides, physicalism and knowledge argument. To come to conclusion, Jackson looks at both sides and finally concludes that physicalism is not true. Another weakness in Lewis’ argument is that it proves too much. His objection is not good enough because it does now allow dualism. Following such logical consequences and physical knowledge would have helped her know everything about the outside world. It is also not true that Mary knows everything before she is released as Lewis claims. In this case, knowledge argument is plausible while physicalism is not. On the other hand, knowledge argument believes that Mary would not have imagined of the relevant experience before her release and hence, she was still missing crucial information. If her knowledge, then, is defective, irrespective of what she needed to know as physicalism claims, it can positively be argued that physicalism is false, despite her imaginative powers. 4. (a) What is “Strong AI”? Strong AI is a feature of computer program to process complex human problems that can also communicate using the human natural language. An example of such a program depicting a strong artificial intelligence is the computer chess game application that at the same converse in the human natural language. Proponents of such a position that computers can be intelligent include Alan Turin. However, according to Searle, by conducting such a complex combination of intelligent activities, computers cannot be said to possess understanding of natural language or even perform complex thinking processes. What is Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument against strong AI? Testing a theory of mind in a computer is expected to fail according to Searle’s famous opinion on the Chinese Room explaining opposition of the strong AI in computers. The following words express his dissatisfaction with the argument of a strong AI. “Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese locked in a room full of boxes of Chinese symbols (a data base) together with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (the program). Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (the input). And imagine that by following the instructions in the program the man in the room is able to pass out Chinese symbols which are correct answers to the questions (the output). The program enables the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese but he does not understand a word of Chinese….” (Cole, 1). (b) What is the “Robot Reply” to the Chinese Room Argument? [“Minds, Brains and Robots”, pp. 7f] Robot reply was the strongest indication of philosophical support to John Searle’s argument where a computer in form of a robot confined in a rom failed to understand language. Alternatively, the computer failed to respond to simple interpretation of words that basic intelligent ought to resolve. The room operator in the setup cannot tell the meaning of hamburger in Chinese and the computer likewise fails to understand (Cole, 1). The computer cannot learn like a human being does from a tender age even after being exposed to the hamburger. Semantics interpretation is beyond internal wiring and connections or syntax. Why might it seem better than the “Systems Reply”? Another element of input to the system is introduced in the system reply which increases intelligence for the resources in the room which include the human brain. Referred by Searle as the most common reply, this phenomenon interprets the whole setting inside the computer room to incorporate the man in charge into the central processing unit. Despite the unawareness of the Chinese language and symbols, much more intelligent process occur in his head and move about yet not comprehend the Chinese word (Cole, 1).. Searle argues that the entire system includes the man and the machine to solve the problem using a wider input for content to solve symbols and syntaxes. (c) Why does Searle reject the Robot Reply? Robot reply is rejected by Searle since the capacity of the machine to respond to learning processes is dependent on extra processes that the computer cannot offer. These extra processing needs cannot be found in the computer made into a robot with virtually all sensory gadgets such as microphones which do not affect interpreting of Chinese words. (d) Is the Robot Reply a good way of defending Strong AI? To some extent the robot reply attempts to expound on AI but fails to demonstrate how new learning can be conducted independently by the computer. While the robot may exhibit a limited capacity for intellectual activities, it is still dependent on the human input for extra perception elements that machines cannot achieve. Despite the high quality information processing characteristics that intelligent machines have, the still fall short of certain aspects of a strong AI that natural intelligence exhibits (Cole, 1). 5. (a) Nagel’s argues that a bat’s perceptual experience has a “subjective character…” This is not an easy argument to understand. What is the argument and what, if anything, does it show? Nagel’s argument explains that certain special types of perception are conditioned on the beholder. In several respects, the sonar phenomenon is a natural perception capacity that is highly expressed in the bat family and studies reveal that certain aspects of the perception can be conditioned in human beings. This inherent capacity for human beings to perceive refined detail in special cases such as in the blind can be extrapolated to imply that normal human perception has some level of unexploited perception characteristics which can become manifested upon some conditioning. This argument shows that the high perception elements depicted in bats can be reached if the appropriate learning or conditioning is facilitated. If machines are capable of performing certain intelligence features, it remains obvious that humans who have higher capacity than machines can likewise learn that extra intelligence. This argument does not rule out existence of some superior intelligence in the universe depending on the type of environment that the dwellers are exposed to, provided natural conditioning enables such special perception adaptation. Work Cited Cole, David, "The Chinese Room Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009. Web. Viewed 27 July, 2011 http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/chinese-room/ Frank, Jackson. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 83, No. 5. (May, 1986. PP291-295. Viewed on 27th July, 2011 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X%28198605%2983%3A5%3C291%3AWMDK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z. Read More