Computers have programs that work perfectly beyond human understanding. This is evident in computer’s ability of defeating humanity in undertaking some activities. For example, Chess is a game that requires intelligence and understanding of people’s minds. The ability of computers to overpower world chess champion is an indicator that computers are often very intelligent. Computers can give answers to anything as long as they receive essential command through the programs. Research shows that digital computers understand few languages but they can hardly think. Searle argues that the best way to test a theory of mind is through imagining the result of doing what the theory says. He refutes functional approach to mind understanding especially computational theory of mind. This theory treats the mind as a central information-processing unit (Hector, 2012). In cognitive science, Chinese room argument is the most discussed philosophical argument. The paper explores various concepts and arguments to examining whether computers have the ability to think.
“Leibniz’ Mill” presents a strong argument basing his ideas on the thought experiment. In his argument, he brings into picture a machine displaying probability of thought, perception and feelings. Examining the interior of the machine one would find parts working with the help of others but without anything to explain perception. This is evident that perception is a simple substance and not a complex or a machine. Leibniz's contrast the obvious behavior of the machine that can display evidence of thought; in respect to the way, it operates internally. He highlights that the internal mechanical operations are movable parts and nothing conscious that can explain perceiving, thinking and feeling. Therefore, physical states or machines are neither adequate for, nor constitutive of mental states. Another precursor of the Chinese Room argument is the paper machine idea. Alan Turing explored this idea thus developing a program to play chess. This is a program with a series of straightforward steps like a computer program, but written in English and people can follow it. There are no special skills needed to operate a paper chess-playing machine. The operator needs to follow instructions for the moves on the chessboard (Keil & Wilson, 2001).
Turing concurred that computers have the ability of presenting intelligent behavior such as answering questions in English and carrying out conversations. In this respect, he proposed Turing Test, which advocates for computer intelligence since it passes online chat. Later on computers became faster, cheaper and could comprehend English sentences when programmed with a database of background information (Hector, 2012).
Turing who is a pioneer in computer science and a mathematician supports that in the future computers will advance and have the ability to think consciously. Proving the consciousness of a computer is evident when a person is not able to distinguish between a computer and a human being if one hides both behind a screen. Despite the several tests proposed by Turing, no computer has passed the tests though some have presented motivating performance (Morris, 2009).
For a computer to think it has to equate its performance with that of mental act. Characters such as restricted access, free will, incorrigibility, raw sensory experience and an unambiguous characteristic essential to mental acts are intentionality. Intentionality encompasses thoughts and only mental acts have intrinsic primary intentionality. Things that do not have minds primarily lack intentionality. A tree or a rock can hardly reflect over an idea. A mental act can convey secondary intentionality to an object. For example, a tree reminds one of a spring, but the intentionality is imparted and not intrinsic (Smith, 2003).
A common attitude on computers is that they are sternly arithmetic devices to perform repetitive arithmetic calculations and other non-numeric tasks. The real working model of a computer includes manipulation of symbols. Many people refuse to conceive the fact that computers exhibit intelligent behavior. The reaction of people about intelligent behavior of computers highlights that such statements imply complete functional equality between them and the human brain. There is no existence of complete functional equivalence of computers with human beings. The concept of comparing the behavior of human beings and computers in a non-dimensional scale recognizes similarities and differences (Morris, 2009).
Computers undoubtedly have secondary intentionality conveyed to them by users and programmers. For a computer to have a mind, it would have to have primary intentionality. A computer's output would be intentional if the output were referential in a manner that is not part of the program. Intentionality of the programmer imparts thinking to the machine. An algorithm does not bind mental acts (Staley, 2003). If a computer manifests acts that are not algorithmic, it would no longer be computer. No amount or originality of programming would enable a computer to think. Mental acts are inherently non-computational. For instance, in an electronic calculator, when one applies any computation it produces an automatic answer, but the calculator does not know anything that is computed. The only thing about the calculator is electrons hitting on electrons, currents and voltages changing. Therefore, a calculator does not understand multiplications such as division, addition, subtraction and multiplication, but performs its duty when commanded. The computation input transforms to output according to the program giving not a shred of understanding or meaning in the calculator. All the information generated by calculators develops from the knowledge of human programmers (Keil & Wilson, 2001).
Searle explained the possibility of an English person answering same questions with a Chinese through exchanging their question and answer sheets. Both get correct answers through matching characters. This highlights the idea of computation through an algorithmic correspondence of input to output. This is also a reflection of what one observes in computers. Both occurrences are merely doing computation, matching input to output, without any understanding (Smith, 2003). In this context, Searle believes that computation does not have intrinsic intentionality, but secondary intentionality instructed by the programmers. Therefore, Computation is never thinking, but a mechanical process. A computer cannot think, although it can do computation. A computer is precisely the contradiction of thinking. Computation act does not have an inherent meaning except itself. Without intrinsic sense, computation cannot be a mental act. One characteristic of mental acts called qualia lack intrinsic meaning, although raw sensory knowledge is not thought to be part of computation (Bishop & Preston, 2002).
There is criticism on "Turing tests" that regards them nonsense and a measure of ability of programmers to fool human beings into thinking that thought is the mechanical process of computation. The only thinking the computer does is because of engineers and programmers who build and program the computer impart the thinking (Hector, 2012). Computers are artifacts, meaning that they have neither life nor soul, which defines the intelligible principle of living things. Souls empower mental acts while rational mental acts define intelligence. Souls can carry out computation such as a form of a living thing and several vegetative powers of living things giving similar input-output computation (PR Newswire, 2013). Intellect is a command of soul that is specifically not computation. It is intentional, and has meaning that is of intrinsic reference. This does not present with computers since it cannot do computation if not programmed. It is apparent that the intellectual mental commands are intentional, and that of the soul are not computational (Fogg, 2003).
Humans are very knowledgeable and smart since they make astonishing artifacts. Some of these artifacts defy laws of gravity and nuclear reactions. This connects the energy of the sun and computers that seem cacophonously human. Without any human intervention, they lack meaning and the only meaning they have is that of the users and engineers who have assigned. A soul is neither a tangible artifact nor material. No one can assemble a soul or create it unless in a different order entirely. Mind is the power to think and not material therefore it cannot originate from matter otherwise people would create soul (Kugel, 2005).
Turing tests do not qualify, as computer tests because they cannot think hence cannot take tests. The Turing test is a human test. There is a contradiction in the test between human beings and computer. If a computer passes it, human beings fail. The failure is because of a delusion that appears to be original in human beings (Morris, 2009). According to John Searle, there is no possibility of a true artificial intelligence. His arguments are openly supported by Chinese room scenario. It is apparent that computers use programmed commands to manipulate symbol strings, but they do not have the understanding of semantics and meanings. This is a great challenge on artificial intelligence bringing great implications for computational and functionalist theories of mind and meaning. In reference to these arguments, it is apparent that the computer lacks the ability to think.
References
Bishop, M., & Preston, J. (2002). Views into the Chinese room: New essays on Searle and artificial intelligence. Oxford [u.a.: Clarendon Press [u.a..
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Hector J., L. (2012). Can Computers Really Think?. The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262016995.003.0012
Keil, F. C., & Wilson, R. A. (2001). The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT Press.
Kugel, P. (2005). It’s time to think outside the computational box. Communications of the ACM, 48(11), 33-37.
Morris, J. (2009). Can computers create art?. New York: Atropos Press.
PR, N. (2013, March 19). Former IBM Chief Scientist Warns of New 'Super Smart' Computers that Can Think Like Humans. PR Newswire US
Smith, B. (2003). John Searle. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Staley, D. J. (2003). Computers, visualization, and history: How new technology will transform our understanding of the past. Armonk, NY [u.a.: Sharpe.
