MINDS, BRAINS, AND PROGRAMSJohn Searle

LOVELACE’S OBJECTION TO TURING’S ARGUMENT

➤Possible argument for (2’’):

i. Simulating human behavior sufficient for thinking.

ii. Passing Turing test sufficient for simulating human behavior.

➤What does Lovelace object to? ➤Turing’s reply: human

behavior less original than we think

1. Computers will pass the Turing Test.

2’’ Computers think if they pass the Turing Test.

3. Therefore, computers will think.

LOGICAL BEHAVIORISM

➤ Fragility: disposition to shatter

➤ Irritability: disposition to “snap”

➤ Behaviorism: mental state concepts definable by behavioral dispositions

FEELING AN ITCH ≠

DISPOSITION TO SCRATCH

objections to behaviorism

SUPERVENIENCE

➤ original Picasso vs. perfect forgery:

➤ equally beautiful?

➤ equally valuable?

➤ Beauty supervenes on paint placement

➤ Value does not supervene on paint placement

➤ A supervenes on B: same B ⇒ same A

SAME BEHAVIORS ⇏ SAME MENTAL STATES

objections to behaviorism

SEARLE ON STRONG AI

➤ Strong AI: following the right program is sufficient for understanding

➤ understanding supervenes on programming

➤ Compare: (i) Simulating human behavior sufficient for thinking.

➤ Searle’s counterexample(?): In Chinese room, I follow right program but lack understanding

➤ same programming ⇏ same understanding

➤ Searle: physical hardware also necessary for cognitive states

Systems Reply: whole system understands Chinese.

Searle: I could “internalize” whole system, still not understand.

Other Minds Reply: We only know other people understand by behavior/speech.

Searle: My question is not how we know other people understand, but what we know.