99,000 Essays & Term Papers: Where You Buy Essays and Papers Online
Direct Essays, Where You Can Buy Essays and Papers Online

Instant Access to Buy Essays and Papers Online!
Acceptable Use Policy
Customer Service
Site Search


Login to View Essays and Papers Online

Join Now - Instant Access to Essays and Research Papers!

  Essay and Research Paper Topics
Acceptance Essays
Arts Essays
Custom Essays
English Literature Essays
Foreign
History Essays
Miscellaneous Research Papers and Essays
Movie Essays and Papers
Music Term Papers
Novels
People and Biography Research Papers
Politics Research Papers
Religion Research Papers
Science Essay Topics
Sports Research Papers
Technology Research Papers
 
  FAQ
Technical Support
Site Map
Direct Essays
 

 



Welcome to Direct Essays

This is a short summary of this paper!

Already a member? Go here to log in and view the entire paper!


Join Now!
by: Credit Card
Join Now!
by: Online Check
Join Now!
by: Phone 1-900
Special! View this paper for FREE!
  

INDIVIDIUAL UNDERSTANDING

I agree with functionalists, specifically the strong Artificial Intelligence (AI) camp, concerning the concept of understanding. While John Searle poses a strong non-functionalist case in his AChinese Room@ argument, I find that his definition of Ato understand@ falls short and hampers his point. I criticize his defense that understanding rests on a standardized knowledge of meaning, but not before outlining the general background of the issue.

Functionalists define thought and mental states in terms of input and output. They claim that what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch (input) creates a mental state or belief, and that particular mental state in turn creates our reaction (output). If I see it=s raining outside, I believe that if I go outside I will get wet, and therefore I take an umbrella with me. The functionalists define a mental state strictly through its cause and effect relationships, through its function.

This thinking leads to the conclusion that the human brain is little more than a big, complex computer. All we humans do is take input, process it, and accordingly create output, just like a computer. In fact, functionalists who support strong AI go so far as to say that an appropria


While strong AI claims that a machine can understand just as a human understands, Searle himself disagrees. He claims that a strictly input-output system, such as a computer is, cannot understand anything, nor does it explain humans= ability to understand. In criticizing strong AI, Searle creates his famous AChinese Room@ argument: suppose that Searle was locked in a room with a large batch of Chinese writing. Here, Searle knows absolutely no Chinese, but he does understand English fluently. For Searle, AChinese writing is just so many meaningless squiggles@ (355). Then, someone slips under the door another set of Chinese writing, but along with it an English rulebook. The rulebook shows Searle how to simply correlate one Chinese symbol with another, identifying them only by shape and not by meaning. Searle then strings together his meaningless Chinese symbols according to the English rulebook, and slips his Awriting@ under the door. More Chinese symbols come in, and in response Searle simply pieces new ones together and sends them back out.

I find the functionalists to be more convincing, although I do not agree with them entirely. I do believe that our brains are similar to highly complex computers. Our senses provide us with input, and this input is stored as memory. As we live our lives, we constantly record input; we note and remember everything we experience. I put my hand in fire, and I soon feel intense pain; I record the experience through a sensory perception of it. When we come across a specific experience again, we recall the old data. I see another fire, I recall the old input of touching fire and burning myself, I remember not being happy with that so my new output now is to walk away from the fire. My brain functions as a constant, complex computer, always recording input and consequently creating new output.

Without this knowledge of meaning, Searle continues, true understanding does not really exist. A[I]f we accept the systems reply, then it is hard to see how we avoid saying that stomach, heart, liver, and so on are all understanding subsystems . . .@ (360). Searle argues that if we only need an input, a process, and an output to attribute understanding, many objects would be said to have understanding. The stomach certainly has input (undigested food), a process (chemical breakdown and the numerous processes it includes), and an output (sugar to the blood, protein the muscles, waste to the anus, etc.). But has the stomach ever been said to understand anything at all?

AIt is a characteristic of human beings= story understanding capacity that they can answer questions about [a] story even though the information they give was never explicitly stated in the story. . . . [Strong

Some common words found in the essay are:
Searle=s Chinese, Searle=s Aunderstanding@, AChinese Room@, Chinese Searle, Strong AI, Searle AChinese, Searle English, Chinese Chinese, John Searle, Astrong AI=s, understand chinese, knowledge meaning, chinese symbols, strong ai, english rulebook, understands chinese, chinese writing, ato understand@, answer questions, understanding chinese, functionalists define mental, searle understand chinese, achinese room@ argument, strong ai claims, verb ato understand@,
Approximate Word count = 1835
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)


  

Special! View this paper for FREE!
Click here to JoinNow!
by: Credit Card
Click here to Join Now!
by: Online Check
Click here to Join Now!
by: Phone 1-900

 

All papers and essays are for research and reference purposes only!
Copyright 2002-2009 Direct Essays , LLC. All Rights Reserved. DMCA
Webmasters make $$$$
Saved Papers