Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

24.09x Minds and Machines

lecture 4 the Chinese room, contd. 24.09x 4: 1
lecture 4
the Chinese room,
contd.
24.09x
4:
1

back to the Chinese room argument

P1: if Searle in the Chinese room doesn’t understand Chinese, the Chinese room doesn’t P2: Searle in the Chinese room doesn’t understand Chinese C: the room doesn’t understand Chinese

the argument is valid

but—for all Searle has said—it is unsound

24.09x 4: 3 ‘a marriage devoted to the mind-body problem’ 24.09x 4: 5
24.09x
4: 3
‘a marriage devoted to the mind-body problem’
24.09x
4: 5

arguments again

an argument is a list of sentences (statements):

P1,…Pn, C

the Pi are the premises, and C is the conclusion

see the guide to logic and argumentation

two concepts to master: validity and soundness

24.09x

4: 2

still, does the room understand Chinese?

Actually I feel somewhat embarrassed to give even this answer to the systems theory because the theory seems to me so implausible to start with. The idea is that while a person doesn’t understand Chinese, somehow the conjunction of that person and bits of paper might understand Chinese. It is not easy for me to imagine how someone who was not in the grip of an ideology would find the idea at all plausible.*

24.09x

*‘Minds, brains, and programs’

4: 4

the Churchlands’ ‘guiding obsession’

at all plausible.* 24.09x *‘Minds, brains, and programs’ 4: 4 the Churchlands’ ‘guiding obsession’ 24.09x 4:

24.09x

4: 6

the Churchlands’ ‘luminous room’

the room really is bathed in luminance, albeit a grade or quality too feeble to appreciate*

*’Could a machine think?’ 24.09x 4: 7 Searle’s other argument* A1: computer programs are formal
*’Could a machine think?’
24.09x
4: 7
Searle’s other argument*
A1: computer programs are formal (syntactic)
A2: minds have mental contents (semantics)
A3: syntax by itself is not sufficient for semantics
C1: programs are not sufficient for minds
A3 is supposedly what ‘the Chinese room demonstrated’
*’Is the brain’s mind a computer program?’;
‘constitutive’ omitted from A3 and C1 for simplicity
24.09x
4: 9

an analogous response?

even though Searle’s Chinese room may appear to be ‘semantically dark,’ he is in no position to insist, on the strength of this appearance, that rule-governed symbol manipulation can never constitute semantic phenomena….*

manipulation can never constitute semantic phenomena….* *’Could a machine think?’ 24.09x Axiom 3 4: 8 A3,

*’Could a machine think?’

24.09x

Axiom 3

4: 8

A3, reworded implementing an algorithm for transforming symbols into symbols is never sufficient for intentionality

is there some other way of arguing for A3?

there is, and it can be extracted from Searle’s writings on the Chinese room

24.09x

4: 10

in favor of A3

the robot ‘reply’

room 24.09x 4: 10 in favor of A3 the robot ‘reply’ why is the program about

why is the program about Rafael rather than twin-Rafael?

Inside a room in the robot’s skull I shuffle symbols…As long as all I have is a formal computer program, I have no way of attaching any meaning to any of the symbols. And the fact that the robot is engaged in causal interaction with the outside world won’t help me…*

4: 12
4: 12

running the

alleged

believes-Reif-is-

MIT-president

program

running the alleged believes-Reif-is- MIT-president program   president twin-Rafael—lives in 4: 11
running the alleged believes-Reif-is- MIT-president program   president twin-Rafael—lives in 4: 11
running the alleged believes-Reif-is- MIT-president program   president twin-Rafael—lives in 4: 11
 

president

twin-Rafael—lives in

4: 11

24.09x

Rafael Reif

another galaxy

24.09x

*‘Can computers think?’

not a reply either

remember: the systems ‘reply’ is the thesis that Searle is supposed to be refuting

the robot ‘reply’ is also not really a reply—it’s another theory

24.09x

the robot ‘reply’ = strongish AI

4: 13

4: 15
4: 15

Searle does have a point against strong AI

but strongish AI remains a live option

24.09x

‘the father of computing’

remains a live option 24.09x ‘the father of computing’ Alan Turing (1912-54) 24.09x WWII codebreaker, founder

Alan Turing (1912-54)

24.09x

WWII codebreaker, founder of computability theory

invented Turing machines

and the Turing test

4: 17

strong and strongish AI

strong AI: there is a computer program P such that any (possible) computer running P literally has cognitive states

strongish AI: there is a computer program P such that any (possible) computer running P and embedded in the world in certain ways (e.g. certain causal connections hold between its internal states and its environment) literally has cognitive states

24.09x

4: 14

Turing machines and the Turing test

states 24.09x 4: 14 Turing machines and the Turing test * 24.09x *‘Minds, brains, and programs’
*
*

24.09x

*‘Minds, brains, and programs’

the ultimate accolade

4: 16

Turing machines and the Turing test * 24.09x *‘Minds, brains, and programs’ the ultimate accolade 4:
Turing machines and the Turing test * 24.09x *‘Minds, brains, and programs’ the ultimate accolade 4:

24.09x

4: 18

image credits

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/12/two-heads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

File:The_Future_of_Higher_Education_L

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Galaxies#mediaviewer/

File:Cluster_MACS_J0717.5%2B3745.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Laptop#mediaviewer/File:Laptop.svg

Rafael_Reif#mediaviewer/

Rafael_Reif_%288411916296%29.jpg

24.09x

4: 19