Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(PHILOSOPHY 1010)
computers that think and that with future improvements, some things like biological
computers, will be able to think better – they will be able to learn more and rely less on
programming. I am defining thinking as the ability to learn from experience, and the
First I will explain what a neural network is and what it is capable of. Then, I will
compare Locke’s concept of the human mind with that network. My main focus will be
on Searle’s argument and how it relates to neural networks and in a lesser way biological
computers. Lastly I will consider Midgley’s definition of persons, if it can fit computers
The creation of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) was inspired by the brain and
other nervous systems and the way they processed information through neurons. An ANN
is made of neurons, which are many elements that process information and are
interconnected. ANNs can actually learn by adjusting the connections between their
neurons, similar to the way that living creatures learn. (Stergiou and Siganos, 1996) This
allows ANNs to learn by example. An ANN can also “create its own organization or
representation of the information it receives during learning time. (Stergiou and Siganos,
1996)” An ANN can be unpredictable, because it can learn. The neurons of the ANN have
many inputs for each output, and it will either fire or not. But, an ANN can respond to an
input it has not been programmed to recognize by using the firing rule (the neuron will
provide the output for the given input that is the most similar to a taught input.) This is
what gives the ANN its ability to learn. Another ability of ANNs is their capacity for
feedback networks, which are loops in the ANNs programming that allow an output to
change an input, which means that an ANN could correct itself, and that an ANN is
2
capable of change. An ANN can also be programmed to assign more or less importance to
Locke in his essay says that humans form an idea about an object based on how it
affects our senses – the “sense data” it produces. Computers can be made to perceive with
certain senses, and can respond to stimuli received by these senses, and just as an absence
produce an effect in a computer with the ability to distinguish it. Locke states that the
images in our mind are only representations (simulations) of a perceived object. This
would indicate that thought consists of simulating objects in an informational way and
this is possible for certain computers. Locke is concerned with what can be inferred by
our perceptions of sense data, and what the actual properties are. This can be related to
how well a computer can sense data and be said to understand it, however this was not his
because that suggests that the mind is completely separate from the physical (i.e. the
brain), but this does not mean a computer with the right structure could not think. He uses
the man in a house example to show that a computer doesn’t understand the input or the
output and is simply following rules. (Searle 1980) I agree that blindly following rules
does not constitute thinking, however ANNs do not blindly follow the rules, even without
understanding their given input they need to be able to distinguish its similarity to input
they have learned. This involves thinking because the ANN must decide whether a given
Searle argues that the understanding computer must be built with the “ability to
produce intentional states (Searle 1980)” meaning that to think it must not rely only on its
3
programming. I say that ANNs are able to change their own programming, but it might be
argued that those changes would still be based on the original programming. This does
not mean that they are not thinking, only that they don’t understand the outputs they
produce.
However, there are biological computers, which have both biological and
mechanical parts and because these computers can be made with neurons, they are able to
make connections on their own, without outside programming. (Tongen 2003) With
mapped out human brain and perhaps even become conscious. That biological computers
could have mental states is supported by Searle’s statement that animals can be assumed
to have mental states because their brains are “made out of the stuff that is like our stuff.
(Searle 1980)”
Searle says that a human is able to know, because of the specific structure of the
brain, not just its ability to run a program. This would indicate that something built like
the nervous system (ANNs are based on the nervous system) or with the same biological
structure (biological computers are exactly that) should be able to perform the same
In fact Searle states that a man made machine and in fact a computer could think,
and even understand or become conscious, if they were built along the same lines as the
human nervous system (or another system that could produce the same effects.) He is
only arguing that a computer’s understanding would not only rely on its program,
Searle may argue that ANNs don’t process information, because they don’t
understand their outputs, and are only able to perform pattern detection because of
4
programmed information. However, the ANNs’ feedback loops allow it to detect an
incorrect output. This is similar to a human solving a math problem. The human may not
know why a formula works. However they can learn to solve it and will be able to detect
if an answer is wrong, by knowing the rules of that equation. This does require thought,
but does not necessarily imply a greater understanding of the answer or formula.
Another way to discuss whether computers think is to examine why someone would
assume they couldn’t. In Midgley’s discussion of what constitutes a person she makes a
point of “finding the right drama” to determine what a person could be. She says that
people are more likely to dismiss any attempts to create new ‘characters’, because they
believe they know who (or what) counts or doesn’t in their drama. (Midgley, 1996) This
can also be applied to concepts of artificial intelligence or computers that think. People
may say that computers can’t participate because they are not similar enough to human,
but there are non-human persons already. They may also say that computers cannot be
considered persons because they can’t feel pain, can’t fall in love, or other characteristics
that don’t involve thinking and would therefore be predisposed to dismiss the idea of a
rational; since they are only logical, and it seems more advanced computers do make
choices.
The idea of personhood raises some important ethical considerations, but even
though computers can think, they are not even advanced enough to properly participate in
society. Even modern thinking machines such as ANNs do not have the capacity to be
illogical; they cannot, for example make decisions based on morality or politics, which
would make interacting with society difficult. Also, until computers are able to feel as
5
well as think, they would be unable to mind being “slaves”. This means there would be
Midgley does make a good point concerning the matter of intelligence in saying that
“intelligence is a matter of degree (Midgley, 1996)” and that creatures with lives that are
different from those of humans would need different kinds of intelligence, which could
acquire intelligence on par with humans, but remained completely logical, it would be an
alien intelligence, because humans do not have that ability. Midgley also makes the point,
while arguing against Kant’s definition of a thing, that anything, including a human, can
be used for a purpose. This means that a thinking thing can be used, which means the fact
that computers have a purpose does not exclude an ability to think. (Midgley, 1996)
In conclusion, in the future computers will be able to think more independently and
make more connections, because there are already computers that can think, by virtue of
their particular structure. These computers have functions that are similar to the human
brain and may even gain consciousness, although that is not necessary for thinking.
6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(http://ilopa.ucis.dal.ca:8900/SCRIPT/biol1020_dal/scripts/serve_home) J. Van
Locke, J. 1823. “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - Book II, Chapter
VIII”. In: First Philosophy, edited by A. Bailey, pp. 183-188. Broadview Press;
Peterborough, Ontario.
Midgley, M. 1996. “Is a Dolphin a Person?”. In: First Philosophy, edited by A. Bailey,
Neural Networks
(http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html) C.
Searle, J. R. 1980. “Minds, Brains and Programs”. In: First Philosophy, edited by A.
(http://www.cbhd.org/resources/biotech/tongen_2003-11-07_print.htm) A. Tongen,
Auth. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Spons. (Mod. 2003, November