Critique of Stanley Fish's Article Essay

The essay “Watson Doesn’t Know It Won on Jeopardy!” is a paper written by John Searle on February 23, 2011 that probes at how IBM’s computer Watson has no human understanding whatsoever. Searle begins by clearing up the common misconceptions about what a computer actually is. Searle explains that a computer is simply a machine that manipulates symbols based on a programs needs and wants, and that the computational power of a computer is not human understanding; it is in fact a measure of how fast a computer can manipulate symbols. Searle then proceeds to explain the process of how a computer works in terms of a human. He explains that a computer does not understand human language at all. A computer just has a program (in binary) that tells

Intense developmental stages in technology have brought us into a place we never thought we would be in, where instances of computers can function correspondingly to us humans. These machines can perform acts such as playing chess and sorting mail, which are actions that most of us have done before. Both William G. Lycan and John R. Serle assess this topic, using different thought experiments, but both introduce the term Artificial Intelligence. Both philosopher’s objectives are not to argue whether this is possible but how will we distinguish humans from computers.

In Minds, Brains, and Programs, John Searle provided various counterarguments to the proposition that strong artificial intelligence is similar to human cognition and that machines are able to have similar cognitive experiences as humans, such as having intentions, as long as it has the right program. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate opposing approaches, which outlined that the theory of strong AI is flawed. The author did this by providing examples of how to disqualify the support for the theoretical perspective that machines, even though they have the appropriate programming, still cannot understand as humans do. Through various explanations and replies to the arguments, Searle makes his point and give examples of the promises.

Alan Turing is known to be the father of the modern computer, and the skewed depiction of his relationship between him and his machine in the “Imitation Game (2015)” displays as to why Alan Turing may have had a keen interest in the idea of a machine's ability to “obtain” human consciousness. Alan Turing develops, and presents his Turing Test in his article “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” that entails having three groups: one of them is the machine, the other is a human, and the last is a judge who will ask both groups a series of questions to where the judge will determine who is the human, and who is the machine (Warwick, Shah, 2015.)

10 years ago IBM decided that Watson, a supercomputer “made up of 90 servers and 15 terabytes of memory – enough capacity to process all the books in the American Library of Congress” (Rose 2016), should be programmed to go up against Jeopardy champions. Watson can read one million books per second, but the trick

Cognitive computing is designed to address the many problems that exist. One is that of which many people feel that there is a “man versus machine” stigma. By educating the public as to what cognitive computing, such as IBM Watson can and will do to help in the world in ways from health care to the way a child learns in the educational area will assist in changing how the reputation of something new is always hard for people to adapt to change to trust and understand where this new technology is going in the next decade. Every era, technology is changing for the betterment. IBM Watson is designed to work with humans in order to find solutions to

AI is a promising technology that has revolutionized the way people may perceive their lives. The AI term was initially introduced by John McCarthy during 1956 in the first academic conference held about the topic under discussion (Nilsson, 2010). AI has witnessed a wave of progress because of three main factors, which are related to each other: the availability of big data that provided a solid base for improved machine learning approaches and algorithms depending on more powerful computers (Bogue, 2014). AI is an automated intelligent system that rationally demonstrates human-like

From the earliest time, man has dreamed of machines that could act and think like him. This idea has since brought up many serious ethical and moral questions: Should “flawed” humans create “flawed” machines with increasing power and complexity, and then trust them? The increasingly popular “We can do it, so we should” notion of technology has created a huge dilemma, as has commercial, political, and military institutions that seek their own interests first when regarding scientific theories and breakthroughs. Although it represents a huge technological advancement, the use of artificial intelligence is a tool that should be used with caution and must not be too heavily relied upon. True autonomy means free will, meaning machines would be

Unlike your typical game of chess on a Sunday evening, the contestants are far from ordinary; one of them is Garry Kasparov, a former world champion, and the other is IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer. Yet for many, the first player is one that can pride itself with the ability to think, while the latter’s intelligence is artificial and ceases to exist without man, its creator. As such, we are faced with the ever-present question: Are machines truly capable of thinking? Not only is this question an entertaining philosophical brain teaser, but it is also in desperate need of an answer as our society becomes increasingly dependent on the cognitive powers of machines. With BBC’s recent report stating that “35% of jobs in the UK are at high risks of computerisation over the following 20 years,” the cost of overestimating or even underestimating machines’ intellectual capabilities could be devastating.

The Chinese Room (CR) is a thought experiment intended to prove that a computer cannot have a mental life with a strong sense of intelligence alike to one that humans possess because a computer does not have a genuine understanding. Rather, a computer is a mere simulator of understanding, and by extension, a simulator of intelligence. According to John Searle, because computers lack a true understanding they are rendered incapable of possessing mental life as we know and experience it (Searle 2004). In the following paper, I intend to explain and philosophically examine John Searle’s argument of CR and will then proceed to reject his theory based on a series of objections. I will do this by examining the concept of “human intelligence” through a filmic analogy, put forth the Systems Reply objection, and examine how the CR argument is foregrounded in anthropocentric bias that presupposes only humans are capable of true intelligence. Overall, I argue that CR fails to convincingly argue that only humans can possess a “human” intelligence because it is an argument based more on intuitive claims, than sound reasoning.

Artificial intelligence is the behaviour of a machine which, if it were to be executed by a human, would be called intelligence (Tabassumirfana, 2010). For so many decades, artificial intelligence experts have been working towards the idea of creating machines that have human intelligence if not better and so far, they've had many successes like cars that can park themselves to computer applications that can spot bank fraud (Weeks, 2011).However, serious challenges still remain and some computer scientists wonder when, or if, machines will ever truly become intelligent.

John Searle's thought experiment in paper “Minds, brains and programs” from 1980 is one of the most recognisable and broadly accredited critiques of artificial intelligence (AI) - an idea that computers are (or some day will be) able to think. Researchers in AI field often make a claim that our mental activity can be compared to a computer following a program. In such a view human brains do nothing more but simply process information on a massive scale. The most important question that Searle wants to discuss in his paper is: “ What psychological and philosophical significance should we attach to recent efforts at computer simulations of human cognitive capacities?” (p. 417) In order to tackle this idea he establishes two different types of

“The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do” (Skinner, 2017). Long before the birth of computers and the internet, technology reigned as one of mankind’s chief focal points. The greatest minds have always collaborated and competitively jostled for position on the world’s stage. Along the way, remarkable progress has been made. These visionaries have enabled the world to move and travel faster, have cured diseases, and expanded the banks of available information beyond measure.

The strategy to present a new technology was the same to astonish the public, revealing the progress about the Artificial Intelligence. This is the idea of IBM promotion, demonstrate how complex will be the future of the technology as same they had done in the past, anticipating the capacity of the personal computers. After the TV show, the Company invested in videos and materials1 promoting the idea of evolution and future of the computing, based in the cognitive science, however in a more practical form, translating the idea of this new system for a more real universe. Also, the another focus of the campaign is to advertise Watson in an emotionally level as involving arts, music, fashion industry. In this approach, the objective is to

If the name Watson was mentioned in the IT world, more than likely everyone would know what the name was associated with. Watson, a computer that can interact with humans, sense, decipher and recognize questions and answer them with unbelievable accuracy. Watson’s introduction to the 21st century was aired on the popular TV show “Jeopardy.” The competition Watson faced while playing on the game show were some of the best players to ever play the game. A one-word summary of how the human mind compared to the smart machine over the course of three episodes was undesirable. Watson embarrassed two of the best players to ever participate in the show. The speed at which Watson processed verbal questions and answered them was nothing short of amazing. It was evident that each member of the team that created Watson had a strong sense of accomplishment for how his or her machine preformed.