LECTURE SEVEN CRITICISM OF MACHINE-STATE FUNCTIONALISM CHINESE ROOM ARGUMENT 对于机器状态功能主义的批评 汉字屋论证
LECTURE SEVEN CRITICISM OF MACHINE-STATEFUNCTIONALISM: CHINESE ROOM ARGUMENT 对于机器状态功能主义的批评： 汉字屋论证
MACHINE-STATE- FUNCTIONALISM AND ARTIFICIAL卟 NTELLIGENCE If machine-state-functionalism is right, then the nature of human mind is nothing but a properly programmed Turing-machine. Since the machine-table is multiply realizable by different physical substrates, human mental states can be also implemented by a properly programmed digital computer. That means, machines can also think as we do. Or in other words, artificial intelligence is at least theoretically possible
If machine-state-functionalism is right, then the nature of human mind is nothing but a properly programmed Turing-machine. Since the machine-table is multiply realizable by different physical substrates, human mental states can be also implemented by a properly programmed digital computer. That means, machines can also think as we do. Or in other words, artificial intelligence is at least theoretically possible. MACHINE-STATE-FUNCTIONALISM AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
The Chinese Room Argument a The Chinese Room argument, devised by John Searle, is an argument against the possibility of true artificial intelligence. The argument centers on a thought experiment in which someone who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters, such that to those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese. The argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding language, even in principle. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. Searle's argument is a direct challenge to proponents of Artificial Intelligence, and the argument also has broad implications for functionalist and computational theories of meaning and of mind As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument
The Chinese Room argument, devised by John Searle, is an argument against the possibility of true artificial intelligence. The argument centers on a thought experiment in which someone who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters, such that to those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese. The argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding language, even in principle. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. Searle's argument is a direct challenge to proponents of Artificial Intelligence, and the argument also has broad implications for functionalist and computational theories of meaning and of mind. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument. The Chinese Room Argument
Historical Background Leibniz”Mil a Searle's argument has three important antecedents The first of these is an argument set out by the philosopher and mathematician gottfried leibniz 646-1716). This argument, often known as"Leibniz Mill appears as section7 of Leibniz Monadology(《单子论》) Like Searle's argument Leibniz' argument takes the form of a thought experiment leibniz asks us to imagine a physical system, a machine, that behaves in such a way that it supposedly thinks and has experiences ("perception") n I7. Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in a simple substance, and not in a compound or in a machine, that perception must be sought for
Searle‘s argument has three important antecedents. The first of these is an argument set out by the philosopher and mathematician, Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716). This argument, often known as “Leibniz’ Mill”, appears as section 17 of Leibniz’ Monadology.(《单子论》) Like Searle's argument, Leibniz’ argument takes the form of a thought experiment. Leibniz asks us to imagine a physical system, a machine, that behaves in such a way that it supposedly thinks and has experiences(“perception”). 17. Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions,so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in a simple substance, and not in a compound or in a machine,that perception must be sought for. Historical Background: Leibniz’ Mill
Historical Background: Turings Paper Machine aA second antecedent to the Chinese Room argument is the idea of a paper machine, a computer implemented by a human this idea is found in the work of Alan Turing, for example in"Intelligent Machinery"(948). Turing writes there that he wrote a program for a"paper machine"to play chess. a paper machine is a kind of program, a series of simple steps like a computer program, but written in natural language (e. g, English), and followed by a human. The human operator of the paper chess-playing machine need not (otherwise)know how to play chess. All the operator does is follow the instructions for generating moves on the chess board In fact, the operator need not even know that he or she is involved in playing chess--the input and output strings, such as"QKP2-QKP3"need mean nothing to the operator of the paper machine a Turing was optimistic that computers themselves would soon be able to exhibit apparently intelligent behavior, answering questions posed in English and carrying on conversations. Turing(1950)proposed what is now known as the Turing Test: if a computer could pass for human in on-line chat, it should be counted as intelligent
A second antecedent to the Chinese Room argument is the idea of a paper machine, a computer implemented by a human. This idea is found in the work of Alan Turing, for example in “Intelligent Machinery” (1948). Turing writes there that he wrote a program for a “paper machine” to play chess. A paper machine is a kind of program, a series of simple steps like a computer program, but written in natural language (e.g., English), and followed by a human. The human operator of the paper chess-playing machine need not (otherwise) know how to play chess. All the operator does is follow the instructions for generating moves on the chess board. In fact, the operator need not even know that he or she is involved in playing chess—the input and output strings, such as “QKP2–QKP3” need mean nothing to the operator of the paper machine. Turing was optimistic that computers themselves would soon be able to exhibit apparently intelligent behavior, answering questions posed in English and carrying on conversations. Turing (1950) proposed what is now known as the Turing Test: if a computer could pass for human in on-line chat, it should be counted as intelligent. Historical Background: Turing's Paper Machine