Words: 1014
Playing God In this paper I will argue that computers cannot have minds. Using examples from Descartes, Turing, and Sear about the definitions of the mind and how it works to support my claim. I will be using the thoughts and examples used by these gentlemen to show how they are relevant in our understanding of the question at hand: Can a Computer have a mind? Descartes was a philosopher that lived during asses and is the father of dualism. Dualism is a philosophy that stemmed out of skepticism.
Descartes doubted everything but discovered that he couldn’t doubt the fact that he was doubting, which came the term Cogitator Ergo Sum, or I think therefore I am. He also discovered that the mind and the body are two separate things, which is where dualism coined its name. According to Descartes, the Mind is an abstract thing that cannot be physically interacted with. He believed that the concrete body communicated with the immaterial mind through the pineal glad. The pineal gland located directly in the brain, this is where the chemicals that causes actions, emotions, and thoughts.
With this example, and the definition according to Descartes of what the mind is, it is impossible for a computer to have a mind. It is possible to write software and program computers to think like a human, but they will never have a penile gland; therefore they will never have an immaterial mind. A computer wouldn’t be able to have a conscience or feelings. Without these Descartes dualism directly defeats the possibility of computers having a mind. If we alter our definition of what a mind is too broader ground of Just thinking we tumble across the imitation game example used by Mr..
Turing. Turing was a mathematician that made contributions to the theory of computation around the sass’s. He used an example of the imitation game to prove that computers could not possibly have minds. Though he was in a time where the first meager computers were invented, Mr.. Turing was spot on. The imitation game requires three participants: one male (A), one female (B), one interrogator that can be either gender (C). Using communication only through type writing, the interrogator must discover which person (A and B) is male and which is female through a series of questions.
Turing contends that if we substitute one of the subjects (A or B) with a computer, the interrogator would be able to tell through a series of questions. Based off the speed of the answer to complex math questions it would be easy to determine if the subject is human or a computer. If the interrogator asked a question of Judgment or opinion, the computer wouldn’t be able to operate. For instance, if we asked the computer about Leonardo did Vinci, it could possibly give us back round to his work and who he as.
However, if we were to ask it what it thought about his painting “The Mona Lisa” the computer might simple reply with a yes, but would be unable to describe it and reflect upon it. The interrogator would be able to tell the difference between the human and the machine. The machine is a fact giving number crunching utility, it has no capacity to have an opinion on artwork, though it could assess and analyze its Playing God (Consciousness and Dualism) By wombat 5 therefore couldn’t mimic a human and its thoughts, which would disprove that it could have a mind.
I’m moving over now to the discoveries of John R. Sear, a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was born in 1932, so he was seen the rise of all this technology and is still teach today. He has better insight to this question posed, as other philosophers didn’t have this advantage. He came up with two very important terms that will contribute to my argument: weak AY and strong AY. The abbreviation AY means artificial intelligence. In weak AY, the assumed mind is Just a program on a computer.
But let’s say we turn in up a notch, and completely program ND design a machine to think so intelligently it could come close to simulating the human mind. This is the strong AY that Mr.. Sear is referring to. Lets say we took that strong AY, as it is that only one that posses a threat to the question, and put it to the test. The Test that Sear created was called the Chinese Room. In this experiment, he wants to figure out if the computer literally knows Chinese, or is simulating that it does (Strong vs.. Weak AY).
He contends that if he was in a sealed room with and English manual that operates a computer that could hypothetically pass the Turing Test, and proper equipment such and filings, paper and pens. He contends that if Chinese characters were put through opening on the door, he could fugue out how to input the symbol into this computer, and come up with a Chinese character as output. With this, he his essential acting as a computer, which begs the question, do you know Chinese? And Mr.. Sear wouldn’t be able to. He was able to manipulate and figure out how to receive the letters, but he himself wouldn’t have to know the Chinese language.
He could have a conversation, in Chinese, without know the elect, proving that computer simulate knowing rather than actually knowing. This brings us to the end of the question, as I feel I have sufficiently shown evidence to support my claims. According to Descartes, Turing, and Sear, machines couldn’t possibly have a mind, as they could only be designed well enough to simulate that they have a mind. Therefore, computers could not have minds. Sources: Perry, J. , Bertram, M. , & Fischer, J. M. (2013). Introduction to philosophy. (6th deed. , up. 285-311). New York: Oxford University Press.