• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Can computers think?

Extracts from this document...


Can computers think? In 1950, Alan Turing wrote a paper that even till the present day, provokes and influences thought about a difficult topic that discusses whether or not we can create something that is capable of thought. I intend to provide a critique of Turing's arguments and show that, whilst I cannot agree with the way in which he attempts to tackle this subject, thought can indeed be represented by artificial processes. However, as we shall see in the forthcoming arguments and as Turing also found, it is difficult to progress such a view in a clear cut manner and without opposition presenting complex discussion at each stage. Turing was forced to consider the delicacies and the essence of human existence and the mind by the sudden death of his closest friend at a young age, shown in letters to his deceased friend's mother.1 However, it was not until twenty years later that, whilst working as Deputy Director of the computing laboratory at Manchester University as one of the first to write software programs for the computer there, but during a confused time in his life, he produced the paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence.2 Whilst he proposes in this paper "to consider the question, 'Can machines think?',"3 he immediately replaces this question with a problem "in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game'."3 This game "is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) ...read more.


In his analogy, the symbols Searle is provided with are called 'the questions,' the rule book is called 'the program' and the symbols he gives back after consulting 'the program' are called 'the responses to the questions.'8 He then asks us to "Suppose also that after a while I get so good at following the instructions for manipulating the Chinese symbols and the programmers get so good at writing the programs that from the external point of view [...] my answers to the questions are absolutely indistinguishable from those of native Chinese speakers."8 Searle's aim is to show that just because a machine could pass the Turing Test, it would not understand what it was saying in the same way as a human would, just as Searle doesn't understand his responses in the same way a Chinese speaker would. The specific refutations of this analogy and their replies are numerous and are not within the focus of this paper. What are of significant importance are the consequences of what it entails. If it is true that the artificial system following the rule book does not think, then there are two possibilities to explain the difference between human thought and the processes of a system such as in the Chinese Room. The first possibility is that humans possess something that the system does not. This entails that we are built in a different way to the system Searle is describing. This explanation would seem to require a definition of human thought and its constituents, which although is essential to such an argument, is not attempted in depth by Turing in his 1950 paper. ...read more.


effect they have on the world by causing our behaviour."11 In addition to this, functionalism also contains the view within the concept of Multiple Realizability that our mental states are not limited to our physical design, and that any other states of physical chemistry could realise similar functional roles.12 It is therefore also possible, that an artificially created state could realise functional roles that are similar to those created in us. If we were indeed to build the parts of a machine in a way that filled the same functional roles as the parts of a human brain, a machine would be created that was capable of thought in the same way humans are. We have therefore seen just how influential Turing's paper is and how it relates and stands up to current ideas. Whilst I have shown that the test that Turing presents us with is not a suitable one, his paper outlines the many issues facing the question of whether or not it is possible to build a machine that can think. However, I have shown that thought is not something we should necessarily become chauvinistic about and it seems we should be optimistic about future developments in this field. As Turing remarked over fifty years ago, "We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done."13 There is still a lot to be done in terms of developing a structure of thought for a machine, but we are in a position where the road ahead is a lot clearer. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Free essay

    Language game

    The concept was intended "to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life". All forms of life have their own language and have their own rules concerning meaning.

  2. Introduction to Philosophy.

    THIS MEANS THAT WE CANNOT KNOW OBJECTIVE RUTH AS THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE VIEW. > In a sophist discussion there is destruction as they introduce DDOUBT in their answers. > Skeptic people, like sophists, never believed that there is truth present in a fact.

  1. Sartre is a very strong proponent of strong determinism, that is, he does not ...

    Upon further consideration, it becomes apparent that while the physical and mental worlds seem separate from each other, each possesses the ability to affect the other. The question then is how this is related to free will. Free will manifests itself in the mental world and applies itself to the physical.

  2. Assess Functionalism

    We can realise things in different ways, for example - the monetary value of �1 can be realised in different ways, such as; two 50p s, five 20p s, or a single coin. - This proves that our minds do not strictly have to be brains.

  1. Can a computer think? Really think?

    In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese symbols, looks them up on look-up table, and returns the Chinese symbols that are indicated by the table. Searle notes, of course, that he does not understand a word of Chinese.

  2. Discussing John Dewey.

    Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1977, P. 81) Dewey is asking us to accept the selective emphasis of the "inconclusive integrity of experience" as a starting point, but by doing so he is guilty of what he criticizes.

  1. John Rawls Bio.

    There is general agreement, however, that the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971 led to a revival in the academic study of political philosophy. Rawls's work has crossed disciplinary lines, receiving serious attention from economists, legal scholars, political scientists, sociologists, and theologians.

  2. Reductive physicalist accounts of the mind fail to fully explain the nature of mental ...

    actor is in pain; even though after the show he admits that he was not. The Behaviourists are able to offer a reply however. His actions can be explained through behavioural history ? via learning his lines he is behaviourally disposed to act in pain at a later stage.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work