You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Phil 102 knowledge and reality final essay
Pages 3 (753 words)
Name Institution Course Date of submission Evaluate the Chinese Room argument as a response to the behaviourist's claim that computers can think. Do you agree with the objection? Why or why not? Philosophical behaviourism believes that mental state is equal to the physical state such that a person’s state of mind can be revealed through his/her behavior.
Consequently, the behaviorists extend this theory to the functioning of computers suggesting that computers can think if they are programmed in a certain way, in which the input/output behavior of a computer is connected to its mental status. However, the Chinese Room argument does not agree with the behaviorist’s claim, which illustrates that thinking is far from a mere production of output from a given stimulus (Martin 175). Therefore, in support of the Chinese Room argument, I will argue that computers do not have mental states because they are incapable of thinking, thus, are not intelligent as human. The Chinese Room argument is one of the examples that present premises to disagree with the notion that computers have a mental state. This argument uses an experiment involving a computer input, output activities of a programmed computer whereby a person who does not speak Chinese completely somehow manages to manipulate Chinese symbols and produce right responses (Martin 178). In this argument, Searle points out a discussion about cognitive science and artificial intelligence. He argues that artificial intelligence is without any doubt artificial. Therefore, the big question here is, are computers intelligent? I agree with Searle’s argument that there is no true intelligence for computers. ...
Not exactly what you need?