Searle - Chapter 2

Question 1

What is strong AI?

Answer 1

The belief that minds are a computational system; according to strong AI proponents, it’s estimated that minds can be uploaded onto hardware in about 40 years

Question 2

What is weak AI in contrast to strong AI?

Answer 2

• Strong AI seeks to create artificial persons: machines that have all the mental powers we have, including phenomenal consciousness
• Weak AI seeks to build information-processing machines that appear to have the full mental repertoire of human persons

Question 3

What is another way of saying strong AI?

Answer 3

Computational Theory of Mind (CTM)/ computational functionalism

Question 4

What are Boolean operators or ‘logic gates’? What are the lessons of this?

Answer 4

• Where the function of ‘and’, ‘or’ and ‘not’ can be coded using a device called an ‘and gate’
• Shows (1) close connection between computers and human thought and (2) we can refer to physical devices which carry out/mirror the very function of components central to thinking, reasoning, and deductions

Question 5

Which two questions does Searle seek to answer?

Answer 5

a) Can computers think?
b) Are minds computational systems? (Is CTM true?)
- N.B. if we say yes to a, doesn’t mean b is true as the mind is more than a thinking thing (e.g. consciousness, qualia…)

Question 6

What is Crane’s definition of a computer? **

Answer 6

‘A device that processes representations (symbols) in a systematic way’
processing in a systematic way representation

Question 7

What is the key idea of ‘processing in a systematic way’? What is significant about this?

Answer 7

Algorithms - we know what they are and we can, and have, create them

Question 8

What is the significance of the Turing machine?

Answer 8

They reduce anything which we naturally recognise as an effective procedure to a series of simple steps performed by a very simple device (could we do with neurons??)

Question 9

What did Hilary Putnam say about Turing machines?

Answer 9

As the first proponent of machine functionalism, he suggested that we should think of mental states as identical to the states of a Turing machine

Question 10

What idea does Chomsky’s universal grammar support?

Answer 10

The general idea of systematic processes or rule-following are encoded in the brain

Question 11

What is Chomsky’s universal grammar?

Answer 11

• Babies go through same stages in development no matter what language they’re learning
• Infants master language far faster than they should if they were completely blank slates
• Leads him to believe that everybody is born with an abstract set of rules that tell them what’s possible and what’s not

Question 12

Distinction between Functionalism and CTM?

Answer 12

The involvement of symbols separates CTM from causal role Functionalism

• Causal role Functionalism is merely committed to the view that mental states are defined by their causal structures
• CTM functionalism says that this causal structure is computational i.e. a disciplined series of transitions among representations

Question 13

What is special about representation through language?

Answer 13

Syntax and semantics creates meaning = ‘semantic compositionality’

Question 14

What did Haugeland say completely in contrast to Searle?

Answer 14

‘if you take care of the syntax, the semantics will take care of itself’

Question 15

What is Fodor’s Language of Thought Hypothesis?

Answer 15

LOTH: mental representations are literally words in a language of thought (‘mentalese’); thinking is a universal language that uses biologically fixed code analogous to computer machine code

Question 16

How do advances in AI support CTM?

Answer 16

Eugene defeating the Turing Test/ ‘deep learning’ where computers learn new skills over time = human performances stimulated

Question 17

With reference to Fodor’s LOTH, why might minds be computers?

Answer 17

• ‘Compositionality’ of semantics also applies to thinking itself; whatever it takes to think a thought, nothing more is needed to think a second; same as language
• Reasoning and deduction; brain is designed to grasp logic and follow rules; syntax enables deduction
• Any language depends on a set of rules (grammar)
• Chomsky’s Universal Grammar Theory = internal rule following drives learning
• Universal Turing Machine shows basic things can carry out complex things

Question 18

Strengths of CTM?

Answer 18

• Avoids major criticisms of MBIT e.g. chauvinsim

- Advancements in AI

Question 19

Issues for CTM (without reference to Searle)?

Answer 19

• Relies heavily on deductive reasoning as support for systematic mental processes BUT most reasoning is
  abductive and inductive which don’t follow rules; CTM doesn’t account for how these can be reduced to ‘formal rules’
• Moreover, the mind involves more than thinking and so even if thought is computational, doesn’t follow that there’s nothing more to the mind than a device that manipulates systems systematically i.e. consciousness, qualia, intentionality e.g. feeling of pain isn’t always ‘about’ something so not a representation at all therefore can’t be manipulated into symobols

Question 20

In chapter 2, what is Searle’s general response to the view that minds are computers?

Answer 20

• ‘A computer has syntax but no semantics’; Syntax is not sufficient for semantics
• A mind needs syntax and semantics

Question 21

How does Searle use the Chinese room argument against strong AI?

Answer 21

• Somebody had a programme/rule book to put individual Chinese symbols together and create words in a way that they could give an outcome indistinguishable from that of a native speaker
• Searle argues it’s clear that there’s no understanding involved here; nobody would say this person understands Chinese
• Therefore, even if a computer manipulates symbols to give an outcome that passes the Turing Test, there’s no understanding involved and so supports Searle’s conclusion that syntax isn’t sufficient for semantics

Question 22

CTM falls under the umbrella of functionalism - what are the main issues for functionalists?

Answer 22

• Fail to adequately deal with hard problem of consciousness/intentionality as illustrated by ‘absent qualia’ (Chinese nation)
• Possibility of Chalmers’ philosophical zombies which are functionally identical to us
• Jackson’s knowledge argument where Mary knows all functional facts about red

Question 23

What is the system reply to the Chinese room? Is it strong?

Answer 23

• The system reply charges Searle with committing the fallacy of composition…
• Searle requires a focus on the man himself failing to understand Chinese but it’s the system as a whole that understands
  EVALUATION

Question 24

What is the systems reply to the Chinese room? Is it strong?

Answer 24

• The system reply charges Searle with committing the fallacy of composition…
• Searle requires a focus on the man himself failing to understand Chinese but it’s the system as a whole that understands
  EVALUATION

Question 25

What is the robot reply to the Chinese room?

Answer 25

• AI researchers say symbols must be grounded in experience of the physical world
• CR therefore fails because it’s disconnected from the external world and if a computer could interact with the outside world it could have understanding

Question 26

Why does the robot reply fail to salvage CTM (Searle’s response)?

Answer 26

• Searle replies saying if the computer program within the robot is manipulating symbols, it still has no understanding as it’s merely a syntactical device
• Even if Searle accepted this objection, strong AI still fails because the criticism goes further than string AI’s assertion that all you need is symbol manipulation; the response itself implies it’s not enough to be a program to be a mind and so contradicts CTM

Question 27

What is the brain simulator reply to the Chinese room?

Answer 27

If we could modify the program to simulate the actual sequence of neuron firings at the synapses of a native Chinese speaker; then understanding would take place

Question 28

Why does the brain simulator reply fail to salvage CTM (Searle’s response)?

Answer 28

Searle, correctly, defines this as an argument from functionalism and so says that the man could operate water pipes with valves connecting them, where water connections correspond to a synapse in the Chinese person’s brain but ‘the man certainly doesn’t understand Chinese and neither do the water pipes’

Question 29

Why is Searle’s response to the brain simulator reply somewhat weakened?

Answer 29

Searle may be accused of chauvinism by claiming only neurons can give rise to consciousness

Question 30

Combination reply?

Answer 30

Suppose the systems, robot and brain simulator replies are all combined; Searle: ‘zero times three is naught’

Question 31

How did Churchland/Pinkers object to CR thought experiment?

Answer 31

The danger of untutored intuitions: intuitions are unreliable when it comes to the nature of reality e.g. light and magnets are connected

Question 32

Dennett in support of Churchland/Pinkers?

Answer 32

‘philosopher syndrome’: mistaking a failure in imagination for an insight into necessity

Question 33

Compare the logic of BN with the logic of CR conclusion

Answer 33

BN: no neuron is conscious but macro brain states are conscious
CR: since nothing in the room understands Chinese, no understanding takes place

Question 34

How is Searle inconsistent with his own reasoning in chapter 2?

Answer 34

• If no single neuron is conscious yet they can come together and create an aggregate of consciousness, it seems possible that a program with purely syntactical components can generate semantics with semantics being the macro/surface feature of the micro syntax
• Therefore, on his own logic, Searle must concede that syntax is sufficient for semantics