Strong AI In John Searle's Work, Minds
John Searle is an American philosopher, known for creating the Chinese Room thought experiment to challenge the notion of strong AI. Searle’s work, Minds, Brains and Programs, introduces the Chinese Room and provides answers to many of the replies that came from presenting the thought experiment to the public. According to Searle, AI is a rigorous tool used for solving problems that will be more precise than any human can be. Strong AI, however is not just a tool. Rather “the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states,” (Jacobsen, 147). Searle’s Chinese Room is meant to refute the claim that the programs, which a
…show more content…
He is just taking an input, following the instructions that he understands and producing an output using the rules given to him. He himself does not understand the story, the question or even his answers. Therefore, the first claim is false. The second claim, the belief that the program explains the human ability to understand, is also false. Searle argues against this claim because “a human will be able to follow the formal principles without understanding anything,” (Jacobsen, 149). Although it is true that a person following the same procedure as the man in the room will not be able to understand Chinese, I believe the claim to be false due to the fact that there is an entirely different process taking place in our minds. The claim was that the program explains how we understand and our ability to understand. Therefore, the program should explain the thought process that goes on inside our minds or at the very least, result in understanding if we were to go through the same process. Searle focused on the lack of recognition, but I will discuss the difference in the processes we go through to achieve it. Computers and people are different. Our minds are complicated, unique and can vary from person to person. A program cannot explain how people understand by using a completely different method from the one we use in addition to one that results in a lack of grasping the concept itself. Computers solve problems differently than we do and cannot explain the way we think. (Maybe make this paragraph into two
He is just taking an input, following the instructions that he understands and producing an output using the rules given to him. He himself does not understand the story, the question or even his answers. Therefore, the first claim is false. The second claim, the belief that the program explains the human ability to understand, is also false. Searle argues against this claim because “a human will be able to follow the formal principles without understanding anything,” (Jacobsen, 149). Although it is true that a person following the same procedure as the man in the room will not be able to understand Chinese, I believe the claim to be false due to the fact that there is an entirely different process taking place in our minds. The claim was that the program explains how we understand and our ability to understand. Therefore, the program should explain the thought process that goes on inside our minds or at the very least, result in understanding if we were to go through the same process. Searle focused on the lack of recognition, but I will discuss the difference in the processes we go through to achieve it. Computers and people are different. Our minds are complicated, unique and can vary from person to person. A program cannot explain how people understand by using a completely different method from the one we use in addition to one that results in a lack of grasping the concept itself. Computers solve problems differently than we do and cannot explain the way we think. (Maybe make this paragraph into two