You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 8 (2008 words)
John Searle’s Case against Artificial Intelligence: ‘Only a Machine Could Think’ Introduction Searle’s (1980) reply to the query “Could a machine think?” by saying, “… only a machine could think” (p. 417, 431) could be easily misconstrued to mean that Searle’s reply is affirmative.
Summary of Searle’s Claim Searle’s (1980) reply to the query: “Could a machine think?” is built on two propositions, which he stated as follows: “(1) Intentionality in human beings (and animals) is a product of causal features of the brain. (2) Instantiating a computer program is never by itself a sufficient condition of intentionality.” Searle explains that the strict logical consequence of his first two propositions is (3) the explanation that the manner by which the brain produces intentionality invalidates the claim that intentionality is also produced by instantiating a computer program. Hence, a computer program cannot produce intentionality. He furthers that the trivial consequence of his first proposition is (4) the need to possess causal powers similar with those of the brain to enable any mechanism to produce intentionality. Hence, a machine should have a human-like brain to be able to think. Lastly, he explains that what follows to his propositions 2 and 4 is the proposition (5) that any literal attempt to create intentionality through artificial way would fail to do so if it will only design programs like the AI; what it needs to succeed is to recreate the human brain’s causal powers. ...
Not exactly what you need?