Consciousness In The Mind Vs Searles Argument - good
Philosophical background[ edit ] The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion. According to dualism, the mind is non-physical or, at the very least, has non-physical properties [11] and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially. In his book, Language, Truth and Logic , Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined. Moreover, it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing.Consciousness In The Mind Vs Searles Argument Video
Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence - John Searle - Talks at Google Consciousness In The Mind Vs Searles Argument
Indeed the very title of this piece will make some philosophers and commentators get very hot under the collar.
Of course the following words are bound to be biased — at least to some extent. That said, critics of my position will be — to some extent — biased too.
So all that should simply be taken as given. Put basically, my own bias leans toward analytic philosophy. Some have classed them as worthless generalisations which have many exceptions.
A couple are discussed in this piece. In most cases one would recognise if a paper were written by an analytic philosopher as opposed to one written by a continental philosopher — even if written in English!
Browse more videos
More particularly, if a paper by, say, a post-structuralist accidently found itself in a analytic philosophy journal such as Analysis or Mindthen it would stick out like a sore thumb and readers would spot it immediately. Again - of course there are exceptions! Yet the prose styles and subjects used and covered by analytic and continental philosophers are — in many Serales — so monumentally different that the exceptions may not tell us as much as some commentators such as Glendinning claim. To sum up.
Featured channels
And all this is regardless of what philosophical position a particular analytic philosopher may advance. In his book What is Analytic Philosophy? That is, the sharing of philosophical tools and a commitment to clarity enables or allows rational and civilised debate. Certain questions naturally arise here: i Do analytic philosophers really share many — or indeed any — philosophical tools?
John Locke Self Identity Essay
Many commentators have questioned this claim that analytic philosophers share tools. All this runs parallel to an account of science as a whole which can be distinguished from any accounts of individual scientists. That is, individual scientists can be very unrepresentative individuals: they can falsify experimental data, stick dogmatically to their theories, be told what to say and do by big business, let their politics influence their science, etc.]
It is a pity, that now I can not express - there is no free time. But I will be released - I will necessarily write that I think on this question.
Yes, almost same.
I think, that you are not right. I am assured. I can defend the position. Write to me in PM.