Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Artificial Intelligence Strong Ai - 1,667 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

The aim of this study is to show that John Searles premises from which he derived his Chinese Room argument are false, therefore, his claim that strong artificial intelligence is not possible is invalid. Partisans of strong AI claim that in a question and answer sequence, not only is a machine simulating a human ability but also: a. ) The machine can literally be said to understand the story and provide answers to questions b. ) What the machine and its program do is explain the human ability to and answer questions about it. Searle originally developed this thought experiment to challenge the above claims that the appropriately programmed computer literally has cognitive states and that the program thereby explains human cognition. To challenge the premises for strong AI, Searle sets up a scenario where a human carries out a function analogous to what a computer program might do. The human who does not know a word of Chinese is isolated inside a room and is to communicate with Chinese people outside the room by mere symbol manipulation using a rule book. Searle argues that the human's successful communication with the Chinese does not entail that he understands Chinese.

The following are Searle's arguments against the above claims of strong AI by using his Chinese room thought experiment: a. ) It is obvious that the subject in the Chinese room would not understand Chinese. He has inputs and outputs indistinguishable from those of the Chinese speaker by using a "formal" program but still understands nothing. Let a computer take the place of the subject in the room. In that case the computer is doing the same type of symbol manipulation and would therefore understand nothing even though it provides answers to questions. b. ) The computer and its program do not provide sufficient conditions of understanding since they are only functioning and there is no understanding taking place. Formal symbol manipulations by themselves don't have any intentionality.

They have only syntax but no semantics. Searle's argument against strong AI comes from his "Derivation from Axioms. " His Chinese room argument proceeds from the following three premises: P 1) Programs are formal (syntactic). P 2) Minds have mental contents (semantics). P 3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.

From these premises, Searle makes the following conclusion: C 1) Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds. Searle then adds another premise to his argument and is as follows: From this premise he forms another conclusion: C 2) Any other system capable of causing minds would have to have causal powers at least equivalent to those of brains. From the above, the following conclusions can be derived: C 3) Any artifact that produced mental phenomena, any artificial brain, would have to be able to duplicate the specific causal powers of brains, and it could not do that just by running a formal program. C 4) The way that human brains actually produce mental phenomena cannot be solely by virtue of running a computer program.

To show that Searle does not have a sound argument, the validity of the first premise will be discussed, as it is the foundation of the Chinese Room argument. Searles claim that programs are formal is somewhat ambiguous and rather weak. To say that programs are syntactic would be analogous to saying that the brain is syntactic. Consider the following. When a baby is born it knows nothing.

The babys brain is neither programmed nor intelligible. However, as the baby grows, its brain develops. It is programmed, if you will, by its surroundings. The baby knows only what the baby is fed into his brain. Eventually this baby grows into an adult and his knowledge is a conglomeration of all the experiences it has had. To put things into perspective, imagine the adults brain as a black box.

Over the years it was fed an ongoing program in the language it had learned. Now lets say the adults body is run by this black box that consists of its brain. Now, put a computer in that black box programmed with all the knowledge from experience that was in the brain. When responding to inputs, the computer, programmed with exactly the same experiences the brain had would respond to stimuli in exactly the same way the adults brain would because that is what the computer knows and the adults reactions to stimuli or to the environment, whether operating with a brain or a similarly programmed computer inside the black box, would be identical. Searle may argue that a computer does not have consciousness, but what else does the phenomenon of consciousness come from other than what is in the brain? Every human being has consciousness, but nobody's conscious operates similarly.

This operation is a function of the program in the brain and that explains why everyones consciousness is dissimilar. It is statistically impossible for anyone to have the exact same experiences; therefore the programs vary from individual to individual. In essence, the experience is the program. Any variation in experience changes the program implanted within the brain. (An interesting experiment to test this hypothesis would be to examine identical twins response to stimuli. The ideal subjects would be twins who are inseparable and have had the same experiences since childbirth. ) So to make the point clear, to say that programs are syntactic is to say that everything within the brain is syntactic.

The second premise in Searles argument says that minds have mental content. It is scientifically accepted that the mental content of each individual lies within the brain. From this it can be concluded that mental content is composed of the syntax of the program in the brain. Thus it can further be concluded that semantics (mental content) are composed of syntactic content. In this world it appears that everything in existence, including thoughts and ideas, can be decomposed into sub categories. What makes semantics different from everything else that can be decomposed?

Searle also makes it clear that what makes humans human is their intentionality or causal power and their unique biological characteristics. But what gives humans their causal power is not their biology. Intentionality is not a result of the human anatomy or how many times the heart beats per minute. It is a result of how the program within the black box responds to stimuli.

So to have causal powers does not require a unique anatomy. The following are premises for a program that can have intentional states. Intentionality will be defined as if anything desires to do something and does it, it went through an intentional state. 1. Anything with causal powers can have intentional states. 2. Anything that responds to stimuli has causal powers 3. A program in a robot that responds to stimuli is developed. (i.

e. when the sensors in the robot send a signal telling the surface the robots hand is touching is hot, the program makes the robot move the hand away from the hot surface. ) The following conclusions are made from these premises. 2. The program can have intentional states. So let us reiterate the issue in question; is strong artificial intelligence feasible? Can a black box with a program within have intentionality? The answer to the question is the answer to whether the brain has intentionality.

Until a program that can program itself is developed, only then will it be certain. Perhaps a century from now it will be discovered that the brain operates on the basis of a large complicated program made up of 0 s and 1 s, which are the basis of humans causal powers. Or maybe this possibility will be ruled out. Regardless of how the brain operates, the important idea is the concept of a means of causation and intentionality. Even if a robot with strong artificial intelligence is ever developed, it will be impossible to determine if Searle doesn't seem to think so; at least not the "right" kind of intentionality. It has been argued that the man in the Chinese room could memorize the program to manipulate symbols and his will to do the manipulations is intentionality.

Searle declares intentionality is a biological phenomenon and affirms that only something that has the same causal powers as brains can have intentionality. He argues that mere symbol manipulation does not entail learning and understanding Chinese. Searle's main point is that no purely formal model will ever be by itself sufficient for intentionality because the formal properties are not by themselves constitutive in intentionality and they have by themselves no causal powers except the power to produce the next step of formalism when the machine is running. Searle is insistent on that the person in the room does not know Chinese and all that he does is manipulate symbols.

The person of course has a brain and therefore there is causation of the brain to manipulate symbols. The person must think to be able to carry out the function. Even though the person is not trying to learn Chinese but merely manipulate symbols, that person is still thinking. His intentionality is focused on manipulating the symbols. He goes through intentional states to do this. Furthermore, the person in the room has a parallel (learning) mind but it appears Searle does not allow the person to use his parallel thought capabilities.

But what if the person was allowed to learn? Certainly in time, he would know what each symbol meant to him. Let's say squiggle to him meant eat. Certainly when he would translate squiggle, he would learn how to say eat in Chinese. So, what if a computer program that had understanding of its own symbols and could learn was developed? Then the program would work in parallel as does the brain.

Furthermore, it will be discussed that even though Searles argument fails to discredit strong artificial intelligence, the very same premises can be used to discredit some theories of mind. Bibliography:


Free research essays on topics related to: chinese room, mental phenomena, strong ai, thought experiment, artificial intelligence

Research essay sample on Artificial Intelligence Strong Ai

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com