Artificial Intelligence (AI) has caused production of computer programs that are more superior to a human being in various aspects. Computers can calculate large and complex sums in a matter of seconds and it is capable of playing chess. These functions require high intelligence levels; these prompted most of the authors to say that computers are intelligent because it understood. However, Searle refutes this claim and contends that a better method of testing the theory of mind like understanding can be created by doing things like imagining what would be similar to do what the philosophy says to make it understandable. In his book, Searle (1980) summarizes the disagreement by illustrating how a native English speaker who does not understand English in a room of Chinese books and other data in Chinese then other people send some symbols that the response appropriate, this person would exceed the Turing Test although he would not comprehend Chinese.
Objections
A computer with the right programs with input and output has the capacity to work as a human being; however, the machine has a limited amount of intelligence. A machine that has been manufactured as if to understand Chinese would take Chinese characters as input, follow the instructions and produce Chinese character in form of output. The reason that the machine is giving Chinese output is that there are no other characters, its response would confuse a Chinese speaker who might think the conversation is with another Chinese. Searle further asserts that there is no difference between a computer and him in a Chinese room because they are all following programs step by step. The effect is that they produce a result that could be interpreted as an intelligent conversation. A strong AI is an appropriate computer program with the right output that would be in a position to process information just like the mind of a man. Searle definition of strong AI is the correct simulation really is mind. Functionalism or computationalisms are terms that are used to define mental phenomena like perception or desire. Functionalism associates the computer with the strength of mind because it can accurately represent a functional relationship between symbols; therefore a computer has mental phenomena because it runs the right program. However, the computer lacks consciousness and understanding.
The arguments by Searle have been criticized for adopting a narrow approach. Churchland rejects the notion that, "syntax by itself is neither constitutive of or nor sufficient for semantics" (Searle 1980 27). On page 35, Churchland notes that the experiment failed because he imagined an equivalent denial of the electromagnetic hypothesis of light concerning a man who produce electromagnetic currents. He further asserts that the intuition of semantic darkness in the Chinese room does not conform to the computational theory of mind that was observed. In rejecting the views of that the computers have no brain like behavior and having artificial intelligence, Churchland asserts that the machine has brain like behavior virtues like fault tolerance and instant data retrieval (36) and have a "common-sense intuition". On the other hand, Copeland (1993, 126) took a careful and cogent refutation of the claim by Searles and replies saying that his reasoning lacked a logical flaw. This is because the Chinese Room Argument presumes the absence of understanding of the system from an understanding of a single man. On the aspect of system reply, Copeland finds fault in his reasoning as it is an idea that somehow connects the person and the paper. In page 126, Copeland asserts that "it does sound silly to say the man-plus-rulebook understand Chinese" and the man does not understand.
Copeland further asserts that the resistance by Searle is intuitive. Searle inference is that the system understands Chinese but his argument is not valid for he lacks understanding of the system. He does not assume that the system understands. He is against the insistence by Searle on the argument that "no way the system can get from syntax to semantic (Searle 34). Copeland further asserts that Searle supporting arguments are weak and the biological object is dependent on the discredited Chinese room argument. Speravak (760) asserts that the person in the original scenario might comprehend Chinese in spite of the denial by Searle. The argument further indicates that our intuition is cases like the Chinese room scenario is unreliable. It is unreasonable to associate human indulgent on the base of conduct displayed in the Chinese room on the basis of similar evidence. It is impossible for a person in a room to be deemed to understand Chinese because whet the person is doing is responding to the instruction or according to the way they have been told. The person giving the response cannot be said to understand Chinese even if they are giving a response. This is the same scenario with the computer that gives an output depending on input.
Responses
Searle is against the declaration that "the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind" (Searle 417) his reasoning is that a computer, when fed with the correct programs, would be held to recognize and cognitive state. His rejection of AI of the computer is that it is not capable of attaching meaning to the syntax or physical symbols it process, therefore meaning that it lacks a genuine mental state. He considers the probable rejoinders to his argument against AI. He considers the system reply would be typical to the response whilst in the room where a person does not understand Chinese but would still respond, Searle asserts that he "understand nothing of the Chinese" and "neither does the system" (419). He further asserts that the robots also do not understand a single word and that the brain is simulated to reply by the actual sequence of neurons. In his Chinese room argument, Searle asserts that computers cannot be likened to a human being because they lack the mind, cannot understand and have no conscience.
The argument on brain simulator reply require us to assume that the database is responsible for simulating the real system of nerve firing that occurs in the mind of native Chinese once the individual comprehends Chinese. The computer is programmed to work the same way as a Chinese and it would understand the language. The scenario set by Searle in the description of brain simulator is a man with a huge set of valve and water pipes that are arranged like a brain of a Chinese speaker. A program then commands a man which valve to open responding to the input. In conclusion, Searle asserts that simulation of mind action is not the actual object. Searle considers a system feature that encompasses a robot with digital mental simulating computer and operates like a man. He argues that a standard input to the mind is from sense organ and therefore a response by the robot would be from system reply. In response (Rey 215) concurs by saying that it is rational to point intentionality as a whole. However, Searle disagrees that a computer can think or understand, it would, therefore, be wrong for a person to attribute a computer with reasoning. An android object that is computerized is unable to reason or interpret a syntax.
Artificial intelligence is important in our lives because all things we love about development is a creation of intelligence, the magnification of people intelligence and artificial intelligence. Computers are not intelligent, but they do what they have been programmed to do. If the right command is given, then the computer will give the right command. This does not mean that the computer or computerized products like robots are capable of initiating a project on their own (Rapaport 410). If they are intelligent, they would not wait to be given instructions or command on what they should do. Intelligence would inform these machines when there is danger like flood, lighting or fire, thereby enabling them to initiate a defense or protective mechanism. This, however, does not mean that I do not support the possibility of some form of AI, the government is using AI in developing weapons of war that are programmed to kill. Some beneficial areas that AI has been effectively used are in the intelligent car and in aircraft where the pilots can turn the plane into autopilot.
My Position
There are various aspects that make AI are reality including internet of things, cognitive computing, and machine learning. By machine learning, computer systems are able to automatically learn and improve from experience without being programmed. Application of machine learning is exercised in the areas of applied in healthcare, pharmacy, and medical image interpretation. Deep learning is a process where a computer employs artificial neutral networks that learn by processing data through a process that mimic the human brain, it is also applied in speech recognition. Cognitive computing is imitation and improving interactions between humans and machine, it recreates the human thoughts process in a computer model by understanding human language. Internet of things is a network of devices that are connected to the internet, thereby enabling an instant search.
Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence has led to the production of computer programs and products that are seen to be superior to human being. Searle has objected the claim that AI is a superior top human being, he is to the claim that computers are intelligent. In his Chinese room experiment, he tries to prove that the computer only interprets the data that has been feed on it. He further claims that the computers and robots cannot reason and the fact that they can do some works like calculation is the retrieval of data faster than a human being does not mean it is more intelligent than a human. However, computers are able to execute commands from programs that enable retrieval of data. Application of AI by the government in the manufacture of weapons of war and in the healthcare settings. Various authors have criticized the Chinese room argument where Searle is said to have applied a narrow approach to his argument.
Works Cited
Churchland, Paul M., and Patricia Smith Churchland. "Could a machine think?." Scientific American 262.1 (1990): 32-39.
Copeland, B. J. (1993), Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introduction, Blackwell, pp. 121-139 " pp. 225-230.
Rapaport, William J. "How Helen Keller used syntactic semantics to escape from a Chinese Room." Minds and machines 16.4 (2006): 381-436.
Rey, Georges. "Searle's misunderstandings of functionalism and strong AI." (2003).201–225.
Searle, John R. "Minds, brains, and programs." Behavioral and brain sciences 3.3 (1980): 417-424.
Sprevak, Mark D. "Chinese rooms and program portability." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58.4 (2007): 755-776.
