Philosophy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Philosophy - Essay Example Turing’s article discussed the famous Turing test, i.e. the imitation game. A similar take on Turing’s philosophy is John Searle’s Chinese room argument or thought experiment. In this essay, I would like to share something vital that I learned in our discussions in class, as well as something that I learned beyond our class discussions, since the topic was of great value to me. I shall give an overview of Turing and Searle’s philosophy of mind. Afterwards, I shall show how their philosophy is of much value to me, in this present day. For, I do believe that topics such as these are not only valuable inside classrooms but also in the real world, that is, in my life. To begin with, like Turing, the Chinese room argument or thought-experiment, advanced by John Searle (1980), specifically challenges the view of artificial intelligence or what is more commonly known as the computational theory of mind. It challenges the claim that all there is in having a mind i s the implementation of a computer program, and that as a consequence, the mental states of humans are no different in kind from the computational states of a running computer program. The Chinese room argument challenges this claim by showing that, unlike humans, computers do not know what the contents of their computational states (or the symbols they manipulate) are about or represent in the world. What computers only know of these symbols are their shapes and the ways in which they should be combined according to the rules of their programs. The Chinese room argument, in its simple form, goes this way. Imagine a native English speaker who does not understand Chinese is locked in a room with only two outlets. Outside of this room are native Chinese speakers who do not know who or what is inside the room. In one outlet, the Chinese speakers give the person inside the room several manuscripts bearing Chinese symbols and a manual of English instructions for manipulating these Chines e symbols. The person inside the room does not even know that the symbols are Chinese; he only recognizes and individuates the symbols according to their shapes or formal properties. Now imagine that the manual, which the person has immediately mastered, says that if he recognizes certain combinations of symbols in the manuscripts given to him in one outlet, then he should arrange certain combinations of symbols and send them to the persons outside the room through the other outlet. Suppose that what the person inside the room sends to the persons outside the room are correct answers to the questions that the persons outside the room ask him through the manuscripts that they send him. In this case, in so far as the persons outside the room are concerned, the person inside the room understands Chinese. But the fact is the person inside the room does not understand the symbols—he does not even know that they are Chinese; he does not know what they represent; and he simply manip ulates them according to the instructions in the manual. Technically speaking, he does not know the semantics of those symbols; he only knows their syntax. So does that count as intelligence? Similarly, an important thought experiment that is used to defend the views of artificial intelligence is the Turing test as discussed in our previous lessons. It will be recalled that according to this test, if after a series of questions and answers, the human interrogator could not tell, on