In philosophy we are studying artficial intelligience, and if its possible to have a "thinking" machine. The argument goes that a machine can identify an apple through input/output processing, but it doesn't really know what an apple is. Are not humans the exact same? Stimuli/chemical processing/response. The argument is that we do understand what the apple is. Therefore, what gives us that understanding? If its not the following: *The physical mind *Energy *The soul What differentiates our processing systems from the possible processing systems of advanced computers? Rowen
How can you be so sure as to know what an apple is? In comparison to a learning machine you certainly have more associations with the concept apple, but that doesn't constitute knowing. It could however give rise to the illusion of knowing.
Originally posted by Rowen In philosophy we are studying artficial intelligience, and if its possible to have a "thinking" machine. The argument goes that a machine can identify an apple through input/output processing, but it doesn't really know what an apple is. I wouldn't call this an argument because it is so vague that it could be hardly called one. What does your teacher mean by "knowing"? Look, if I was a behaviourist (popular in psychology back in the 30s), then I would say knowing is nothing but the right pairs of stimulus-response. Are not humans the exact same? Stimuli/chemical processing/response. The argument is that we do understand what the apple is. This is beyond me completely... Therefore, what gives us that understanding? If its not the following: *The physical mind *Energy *The soul What differentiates our processing systems from the possible processing systems of advanced computers? Rowen Rowen, if you really want to know if computers can have consciousness, then I strongly suggest studying John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment and the various reactions given to it by philosophers, computer scientists, psychologists... The ChR convinced me that computers (universal Turing machines, if you know the concept) cannot think at all for deep (non-technical) reasons. (The article was published first in Scientific American, as far as I remember.)
A different type of understanding I guess thats what I was poorly trying to get at. How are we any different from machines?They know the apple through numbers, and we know the apple through chemicals. However, the point I am most intrigued by is that in that case computers can be exactly like us. However, once again I somehow feel deep down that what would be lacking in AI would be a ceartain understanding of sorts. Thats my main query. What makes us human,and what makes our understanding unique? (this is beyond the understanding associated with the apple, because that is a whole other qtn. concerning the senses and our perception of the world and if we can ever really know the world as discussed by Ayer or Austin I think)
The apple is an apple, to us! It is a 'fruit', as it has been named, which is eaten and which contains vitamins and nutrients which can be absorbed and utilized by the human body. Thats what an apple is to us. To a computer, without a need for these nutrients 'the apple' could be almost anything. While it may be able to analyse the apple and the data show that the apple contains nutrients which are good for the human body, to the computer the apple will be something different. It may be just 'something that animals eat' to the computer. Yeah I'd say so but we are something more. We have a soul, which, I would say, is an internal projection of the self more than anything else, before the arguments arise.
You're problems lie in apparently weak definitions of understanding and knowing. As was discussed in another thread recently, to understand simply means to perceive and grasp any/the significance of something. So yes, a "thinking" machine does "understand" an apple. It may apply that knowledge differently and it may not have the human reaction (as Charles pointed - though I completely disagree with Charles on his second point), but it still "understands". One major problem in philosophy is that people use ridiculously ambiguous terms and really don't know the words they're saying. A dictionary is a valuable thing. Because people don't use dictionary meanings in their philosophy often, we get confused as we all try and interput the word our own way. Ayer pointed out that an important part of any debate or discussion is to ensure that all members are using the exact same definitions. As Wittgenstein said, far too often our idea of a philosophical idea is simply a fumbling of words.
Yes, I agree that machines can technically speaking "think" and "understand", but my problem is that machines would just be mimicking human thought and emotion. My question is what would differentiate humans from computers if computers had the storage capacity required to think and understand like humans? NO I do not believe it is the "soul" However, I feel as though there must be something that would differentiate ourselves. A conection with the natural world maybe? I have no idea. Is this not addressed in "Space Odyssey: 2001" Rowen
This is a very egocentric view in terms of humanity being the standard by which everything else must be measured against. Although machines have been created by us, and therefore some things, such as motion, may be based on human motion, emotion would be mimiking emotions that are already present, but not necessarily human emotion. Many animals, I would say, feel emotions which are simliar to ours if not the same as ours. I would also say that it is a point of debate to whether machines are capable of feeling emotion at all.
I don't have the ability to see the color red. so therefore, it doesn't exist to me. Not that it did in the first place. As you should all know, color is just a reflection of light off of an object.
What is it inherent in an object that makes colour though? I thought colour was just light at different frequency's and that's why the red-blue shift, which has been discovered in astronomy, helps to explain the theory that the universe is expanding.
I can normally tell when things are red. It's darker then grey, but lighter then black. Sometimes I just don't know. But usually I can tell. My other faculties have compensated.
