Turing and the Imitation Game Turing describes the following kind of game. Suppose that we have a person, a machine, and an interrogator. The interrogator is in a room separated from the other person and the machine. The object of the game is for the interrogator to determine which of the other two is the person, and which is the machine.
The paper referred to a thought experiment which argued against the possibility that computers can ever have artificial intelligence AI ; in essence a condemnation that machines will ever be able to think.
Searle's argument was based on two key claims. Syntax in this instance refers to the computer language used to create a programme; a combination of illegible code to the untrained eye which provides the basis and commands for the action of a programme running on a computer.
PDF | The most famous challenge to the aims of computational cognitive science and artificial intelligence is the philosopher John Searle's 'Chinese Room' argument. The Cybernetics Society holds scientific meetings, conferences, and social events, and engages in other activities to encourage public understanding of science and to extend and disseminate knowledge of cybernetics and its associated disciplines. Harnad endorses Searle's Chinese Room Experiment as a reason for preferring his proposed Total Turing Test (TTT) to Turing's original "pen pal" test (TT). By "calling for both linguistic and robotic capacity," Harnad contends, TTT is rendered "immune to Searle's Chinese Room Argument" (p.
Semantics refers to the study of meaning or the understanding behind the use of language. Searle's claim was that it is the existence of a brain which gives us our minds and the intelligence which we have, and that no combination of programming language is sufficient enough to contribute meaning to the machine and therein for the machine to understand.
His claim was that the apparent understanding of a computer is merely more than a set of programmed codes, allowing the machine to extort answers based on available information. He did not deny that computers could be programmed to perform to act as if they understand and have meaning. A machine is unable to generate fundamental human mindsets such as intentionality, subjectivity, and comprehension Ibid, This paper aims to analyse the arguments, assess counter augments and propose that John Searle was accurate in his philosophy; that machines will never think as humans and that the issue relates more to the simple fact that a computer is neither human nor biological in nature, nor can it ever be.
It describes an examination of the veracity to which a machine can be deemed intelligent, should it so pass. Searle argued that the test is fallible, in that a machine without intelligence is able to pass such a test.
It was proposed by Searle as a way of illustrating his understanding that a machine will never logically be able to possess a mind. Searle suggests that we envisage ourselves as a monolingual speaking only one language English speaker, locked inside a room with a large group of Chinese writing in addition to a second group of Chinese script.
We are also presented with a set of rules in English which allow us to connect the initial set of writings, with the second set of script. The set of rules allows you to identify the first and second set of symbols syntax purely by their presenting form.
Furthermore, we are presented with a third set of Chinese symbols and additional English instructions which makes it feasible for you to associate particular items from the third batch with the preceding two. However, Searle suggests that your responses to the questions become so good, that you are impossible to differentiate from a native Chinese speaker; yet you are merely behaving as a computer.
Searle argues that whilst in the room and delivering correct answers, he still does not know anything. He cannot speak Chinese yet is able to produce the correct answers without an understanding of the Chinese language. The machine is not producing intuitive thought; it is providing a programmed answer.
Searle’s famous Chinese Room Argument has been the target of great interest and debate in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence and cognitive science since its introduction in Searle’s article ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’. The Chinese room is a thought experiment presented by John Searle in order to challenge the claims of strong AI (strong artificial intelligence). According to Searle, when referring to a computer running a program intended to simulate human ability to understand stories: "Partisans of strong Al claim that the machine is not only simulating a. Systems reply: • Concedes the man in the room does not understand chinese • Believes the man is a CPU in a bigger system • Therefore, the man does not understand Chinese (bc he is just a part) but the system as a whole does.
This argues that we are encouraged to focus on the wrong agent; the individual in the room. This implies that the man in the room does not understand Chinese as a single entity, but the system in which he operates the roomdoes. However, an evident opposition to such claim is that the system the room again has no real way of connecting meaning to the Chinese symbols any more than the individual man did in the first instance.
Even if the individual were to internalize memorise the entire instructional components, and be removed from the system roomhow would the system compute the answers, if all the computational ability is within the man.
Yet, Searle's defence is that if we were to further imagine a computer inside a robot, producing a representation of walking and perceiving, then according to Harnard, the robot would have understanding of other mental states.
Again, the system simply follows a computational set of rules installed by the programmer and produces linear answers, based upon such rules.
There is no spontaneous thought or understanding of the Chinese symbols, it merely matches with that already programmed in the system.(2) According to the Turing Test, the room as a whole—not just the man himself—should pass the Turing Test, and should be interpreted as consciously understanding Chinese.
(3) But clearly no part of the Chinese room, including the man in it, actually understands Chinese. John Searle asks us to consider a thought experiment: suppose we have written a computer program that passes the Turing test and demonstrates "general intelligent action." Suppose, specifically that the program can converse in fluent Chinese.
Searle's Chinese Room experiment parodies the Turing test, a test for artificial intelligence proposed by Alan Turing () and echoing René Descartes' suggested means for distinguishing thinking souls from unthinking automata.
Searle’s famous Chinese Room Argument has been the target of great interest and debate in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence and cognitive science since its introduction in Searle’s article ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’.
The argument and thought-experiment now generally known as the Chinese Room Argument was first published in a paper in by American philosopher John Searle (). It has become one of the best-known arguments in recent philosophy. PDF | The most famous challenge to the aims of computational cognitive science and artificial intelligence is the philosopher John Searle's 'Chinese Room' argument.