John Searle’s Argument on Strong Artificial Intelligence

John Searle in his paper masterminds, Brain and Programs presented the immobile critics of the smashed intelligence. First of all in the paper Searle assortediates in the midst of different types of hokey intelligence weak AI, which is conscionable a assisting bastard in study of the soul, and strong AI, which is considered to be appropriately designed ready reck angiotensin-converting enzymer able to perform cognitive operations itself. Searle conducted Chinese way test, the homegrown goal of which is to resurrect that machines cannot posses the states of conscious aw arness, like perceiving, checking or crafty (Searle, 1980).According to Stevan Harnad, in his research Searle veritablely does not moot about artificial intelligence at all but in feature he attacked the main(prenominal) positions of computationalism, a position (unlike Strong AI) that is actually held by numerous thinkers, and hence iodin worth refuting (Harnad, 2001). Shortly, Chinese room tho ught experimentation can be described the following way. Searle places himself on the place of the figurer. He supposed that he had to process a batch of Chinese characters with the help of the definite platform and produce the output.Searle is completely unfamiliar with Chinese he cant dismantle differentiate Chinese characters from Japanese ones. He could alone distinguish them by their shapes. Searle was able to process those symbols due to the position that the rules were preyn in English. That enabled him to operate with the Chinese characters. In most period as the person learns the rules better, processing the Chinese row starts easier and the answers are more than typeset.So, people who ask questions in Chinese and receive answers are indisputable that the person gos the language as the answers are unspoilt undistinguishable from the answers of native speakers of Chinese. The conclusion is that obeying definite rules Searle can process Chinese questions and gi ve correct answers to them without even knowing a word in Chinese. Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I dont speak a word of Chinese, Searle writes (Searle, 1980). The same thing is with computers. They are in detail in the same position as Searle.Computers dont save foreland, they dont think in Chinese, but they are manipulating with symbols just as Searle did. Thats why people might have the flick that computers can possess intelligence. However, this work of Searle was not a complete history on the problem of artificial intelligence. It was just a beginning and it raise the wave of critics and argument. On the one hand almost all researchers couldnt but agree with the Searles statement that he was able to give correct answers to the questions without knowing the word in Chinese.But tranquillize at that place were a numerate of people who considered that Searles experiment couldnt be judged as a valid critics of the artificial intelligence. All the replies ca n be roughly divided into the following main groups ( kail, 2004). The first group argued the Searles experiment by identifying, who it is who speaks Chinese. The second group of critics researches the way how vacuous symbols can become meaningful. The third group of scholars believes that in that location is a need to redesign the Chinese room along the lines of a brain.Finally the last group of scholars considers that there are numerous engineers which testify to the concomitant that Searles argument is completely misleading. So, as it was already mentioned the first argument was concerned with the see source. This group of researchers was enkindle in the question where the mind was since the person in the room wasnt speaking Chinese. The main issues under research were main ontological controversies of mind and body and simulation and reality (Cole, 2004 Hauser, 2005 Hearn, 2007). The group of the researchers attempting to answer this question disappear into several cate gories.The first category proposed dusts reply (Searle, 1980 Cole, 2004, Hauser, 2005 Russel & Norvig, 2003 Dennett, 1991 Hearn, 2007, Crevier, 1993), which believes that since the person is not the one who possesses the knowledge of Chinese but the answers are still correct, it is the system, comprising the man, batch of words and rules for processing the words, which comprehends Chinese. The person in the room is just a get out of this understanding system, which implies that the fact that the person does not understand and does not know the Chinese language is completely irrelevant.However, Searle was able to answer this critical solvent saying that the man can be the whole system in boldness he memorizes all the rules for processing the Chinese words and provide keep them in his mind. However, this wont change the fact that he does not understand Chinese (Searle, 1980). The opposite level on which Searle argued this retort was that critics are in fact missing the point a s they on the one hand were trying to find the mind, but on the other hand point that it belongs to some system, which is a room.But this doesnt get to sense as the room itself has nothing to do with the mind. It can be true only on the point when the critics explain this from the metaphysical point of view, which means that the mind is something that appears or emerges in the room and continues to exist there (Harnad, 2005 Searle, 1980 Crevier, 1993). The other response, which belongs to the group of mind finders, is virtual mind reply (Cole, 2004). This depictms to be a more correct reply, which sticks to the predilection that there is some Chinese-speaking mind in the room but it is virtual.It was argued that computing machinery possesses the ability to implement other computer, which implies that any computer can simulate other machines step-by-step, performing the functions of both. Cole even argues that a program can be created, which in fact is able to implement two minds at once. So, despite the fact that there exists only one man in the room and one system, the number of virtual minds can be unlimited (Cole, 2004).However, Searles response was that such a mind is nothing but a simulation by itself No one supposes that computer simulations of a five-alarm fire will burn up the neighborhood down or that a computer simulation of a rainstorm will leave us all drenched(Searle, 1980). This statement was argued by the supporter of the virtual mind idea, Nicholas Fearn, in the following way When we bellyache up the pocket calculator function on a desktop computer, the image of a pocket calculator appears on the screen. We dont complain that it isnt really a calculator, be motive the physical attributes of the twist do not matter (Fearn, 2007).Anyway, the following conclusion can be do on the one hand these scholars were able to argue the Searles statement that strong artificial intelligence is false due to the fact that the man in the room doesnt un derstand Chinese, which implies that nothing in the room understands Chinese (Cole, 2004). On the other hand the scholars still failed to prove the existence of the strong AI as they couldnt prove that the system or virtual mind understands Chinese. Searle maintains that the systems reply simply begs the question by insisting that system must understand Chinese (Searle, 1980).The other groups of scholars, who argue Searles work, were concerned with finding the meaning. Their replies are generally referred to as zombie and semantics replies. The main concern of these scholars is to argue the Searles work at the point of intendedity and syntax-semantics controversy. For the person in the room Chinese characters are just meaningless squiggles, however, if the Chinese room can really comprehend Chinese words, there should be the source of the meaning. Thus, this group of scholars was trying to find the alliance between the symbols and the items they symbolize.According to the propose d replies to these questions, several categories could be differentiated. First one is robot reply (Searle, 1980 Cole, 2004 Hauser, 2006 Hearn, 2007), which states that if the program is placed in the robot instead of the room nobody would dubiety that he understands what hes doing due to the establishment of the causal connection between the symbols and things, which are represented by them. According to Hans Moravec If we could graft a robot to a reasoning program, we wouldnt need a person to lead the meaning anymore it would come from the physical world (in Crevier, 1993).However, Searle argued this idea by stating that there is no difference who operates the words, as the person in the room is just following the rules without understanding what the words actually mean. Searle further says that he doesnt see what comes into the robots eyes (Searle, 1980). The second group proposed derived meaning possible action (Hauser, 2006 Cole, 2004), which there is a connection between the room and the world by dint of Chinese speakers and programmers, which implies that the symbols the person works with are already meaningful in general, which does not necessarily mean that they should be meaningful to him.However, Searle argues that symbols can only possess derived meaning, which depends on the conscious comprehension of Chinese speakers and programmers exterior the room, which does not at all mean that the room by itself possesses the ability to understand by itself (Cole, 2004). The other semantic replies were concerned with the harshsense knowledge idea (Dennett, 2007), which states that the meaning of symbols could be derived from the background of the commonsense knowledge, which serves as a stage setting providing meaning for the symbols.Searle argument was based on the idea that although the background does exist, still it cant be built in programs. So, it is obvious that Searle supports the base that there is no difference in the amount of knowledge w ritten into the program and the connection of the later with the world. Still the person is the only one, who operates in the room and his actions is purely syntactic, which do not provide him with the meaning of the words, thus, the main Searles statement is that syntax is insufficient for semantics(Searle, 1984 Searle, 1989).However, it should be admitted that there is some sense in the virtual mind theory, saying that even though the symbols mean nothing to Searle, they acquire their meaning from the virtual mind, which is connected with the outside worlds through Chinese speakers and programmers, which implies that it is irrelevant whether these symbols mean anything to Searle. The third group of scholars argued Searles work on the point that it the system needs to be redefined.Thus, agree to brain simulator reply (Searle, 1980 Cole, 2004 Hauser, 2006 Churchland & Churchland, 1990.) the program is sure to understand Chinese in case it is a simulation of the interaction of the n eurons in the brain of a speaker of the Chinese language. Searle argues this reply saying that this type of simulation is futile to reproduce such basic features of the brain as its causal and intentional states, saying that human mental phenomena are dependent on actual physical-chemical properties of actual human brains (Searle, 1980). He further states that only brains can cause mind (Hauser, 2006).According to the brain replacement scenario (Russell Norvig, 2003 Cole, 2004 Moravec, 1988 Kurzweil, 2005 Crevier, 1993,) the scholars maintain that in case one small computer is able to simulate the work of one somebody neuron, this wont cause that much difference to the system in general, however, in case all the neurons are replaced, we would create digital computer stimulating the brain. This means that if we support Searles point of view this will lead to the disappearance of the whole conscious awareness (Searle, 1992 Russell & Norvig, 2003).Combination reply (Searle, 1980 Hause r, 2006) back up the idea that in case there is a robot created on the basis of brain simulation, which is linked to the world in the way that it has the causal power of the real brain, it is able to think. Connectionist reply (Cole, 2004 Hauser, 2006) has much in common with the brain simulator reply and believes that the real comprehension is possible in case there is a massively parallel connectionist computer architecture. So, basically these arguments can be divided into two main groups.The first one believes that Searle is true in this Chinese room experiment, however, in case some changes are made in the room or the program, it can acquire mind and ken (Cole, 2004). The second group considers that redesigning should be made in order to see at which point Searle is wrong. Searle argues that machines still are unable to understand anything even if they are redesigned. The other argument is that in case there is a need of a robot body or a connectionist architecture are necess ary, this would mean that we cant speak any long-lasting of strong AI (Searle, 1980 Harnad, 2001).According to Searle I thought the whole idea of strong AI was that we dont need to know how the brain works to know how the mind works (Searle, 1980) So, as far as we can see Searles argument of the strong artificial intelligence has its grounds. It is thoroughly based and well-considered. on that point was a lot of argument on his Chinese room experiment, however, but any critic was able to prove that Searle was completely wrong at some point.References1. Churchland, Paul and Churchland, Patricia. (January 1990). Could a machine think?. Scientific American 262 32-39.2. Cole, David. (Fall 2004). The Chinese Room Argument, in Zalta, Edward N. , The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.3. Crevier, Daniel. (1993), AI The Tumultuous bet for Artificial Intelligence. NY BasicBooks.4. Dennett, Daniel. (1991). Consciousness Explained. The Penguin Press.5. Fearn, Nicholas. (2007). The Latest Answers to the Oldest Questions A Philosophical Adventure with the Worlds superior prizeers. New York Grove Press.6. Harnad, Stevan. (2001). Whats Wrong and Right About Searles Chinese Room Argument. in M. & Preston, J., Essays on Searles Chinese Room Argument, Oxford University Press.7. Harnad, Stevan. (2005). Searles Chinese Room Argument, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan.8. Hauser, Larry. (1997). Searles Chinese Box Debunking the Chinese Room Argument. mentalitys and Machines, 7 199-226.9. Hauser, Larry. (2006). Searles Chinese Room, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.10. Kurzweil, Ray. (2005). The Singularity is Near. Viking Press.11. Moravec, Hans. (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press.12. Russell, Stuart J. and Norvig, Peter. (2003). Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach (2nd ed.). Upper commove River. NJ Prentice Hall.13. Searle, John. (1980). Minds, Brains and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3) 417-457.14. Searle, John. (1983). Can Computer s Think? , in Chalmers, David, Philosophy of Mind Classical and Contemporary Readings, Oxford.15. Searle, John. (1984). Minds, Brains and Science The 1984 Reith Lectures. Harvard University Press.16. Searle, John. (January 1990). Is the Brains Mind a Computer Program? Scientific American 262 26-31.17. Searle, John. (1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Massachusetts M. I. T. Press.