philosophy exam 2

searle residual operationalism

That much of AI is residual behaviorism and operationalism Since programmed computers can have input - output patterns similar to humans, we need to see both conceptually and empirically that is possible for a system to have human capacities without any intentionality What matters are programs and programs are independent of their realization in machines

How can something be both a material and immaterial substance at the same time?

The answer according to Ryle: They cannot → In order to affect and be affected by physical law, one must necessarily be a physical entity → We would be making a categorical mistake if we were to allow the purely non-physical to be effected by the physical (and vise versa)

ryle ghost in the machine pt 2

The dogma of ghost in the machine supported by the idea that between two categorical part, there is conjunction that connect both, and it is of course the absurd idea. Because it is presupposed both of them work on their own way. In proper way, we could say there exist minds, and there exist bodies. This just indicate two different sense of exist, but not the the categorical. explains that there is no hidden entity called the "mind" inside a mechanical apparatus called the "body". The workings of the mind are not an independent mechanism that governs our body. The actions of the mind are rather our explanations of the actions of the body.

paley watch/watchmaker

The inference is as follows ... watch : watch maker :: universe : universe maker He argues just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watch-maker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker.

1 objection paley (artist)

We never knew the artist capable of making a watch (re a universe) or we do not know how the work was accomplished. Paley's response: Just because we don't know who the artist might be, it doesn't follow that we cannot know that there is one.

ryle privileged access

direct access to the workings of a mind is the privilege of that mind itself the workings of one mind are inevitably concealed to everyone else when someone is described as knowing, believing , etc are supposed to denote the occurrence of specific modification in his occult stream of consciousness. only his own privilege access to this stream in direct awareness and introspection could provide authentic testimony that these mental conduct verbs were correctly or incorrecty applied

searle syntax

formal symbol manipulation People process inform when they reflect, say, ect. and computers only manipulate formal symbols Computer has syntax but no semantics. It only has symbols with no interpretation Provides reasons on why AI must seem in some way produce and explain mental phenomena

ryle dualism

he attempts to show that Descartes dualism commits a similar category confusion, he critics it human bodies are in space and are subject to the mechanical laws which govern all other bodies in space. bodily processes and states can be inspected by external observers. but minds are not in space and are not operation subjects to mechanical laws. it is not witness able by other observers - it is a private process

ryle ghost in the machine

he tries to prove it as false it is a category mistake -it represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type or category, whey they actually belong to another a persons thinking, feeling and purposive doing cannot be described solely in the idiots of physics, chemistry and physiology, therefore they must be described in counterpart idioms. as the human body is a complex organized unit so the human mind must have another complex organized unit, though one made of a different sort of stuff

ryle category mistake

is a confusion one slips into when something that belongs to one category or context is mistakenly taken to belong to another an example is a person going on a college tour, he sees the whole college - football filed, museum, library and classrooms. he then asks where is the university, he know he has seen where the students live and where the scientists experiment but not seen the university in which reside and work members of the college. it is explained to him that the university is not another collateral institution and is just in the way he has all seen is organized he was mistakenly allocating the university to the same category as that to which other institutions belong the college wasn't a counterpart to the units already seen.

Searle: strong AI

is the computer that is not merely a tool in the study of the mind but rather the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind Saying that computers given the right programs can understand and have other cognitive states The programs are themselves and the explanations for psychological thinnking He denies this Appropriately programmed computer literally has cognitive states and that the programs explain human cognition

searle weak aI

is the principal value of the computer in the study of the mind Formulate and test hypotheses in a more rigorous way Argues that weak AI, which states that the mind functions somewhat like a computer, might be correct,

searle semantics

meaning The study of the meanings of words and other parts of language; the general study of signs and what they stand for. Computers do not have semantics

2nd objection paley (perfect)

objection: The parts of the watch (re universe) do not work perfectly; the designer is not evident. Paley's response: It is not necessary to show that something is perfect in order to show that there is a design present.

searle shanks program

the aim of the program is to simulate the human ability to understand stories It is a characteristic of human being to have the understanding capacity about a story. The ability for them to answer questions about the story even though the information that they give was never explicitly stated in the story A man goes into a restaurant and orders a hamburger that ends up being burnt so he walks out without paying for it If someone asked if he ate the burger, the answer would be no the claim that in this question and answer sequence, the machine is not only simulating a human ability but also that the machine can literally be said to understand the story and provide the answers to questions.

searle understanding

All he needs is that there are clear cases where "understanding" applies and clear cases when "understanding" does not apply We often attribute "understanding" and other cognitive predicates by metaphor and analogy to artifacts but nothing is proved by such attributions We say the door knows when to open because of its photoelectric cell The reason we do this is because we extend our own intentionality of artifacts Our tools are extensions of our purposes The sense in which an automatic door "understands instructions" is not the same as understanding english

searle intentionality

Because the formal symbol manipulations by themselves don't have any intentionality; they are meaningless- intentionality is in the people who program them The distinction between program and realization has the consequence that the same program could have all sorts of crazy realizations that had no form of intentionality People don't get any extra intentionality by memorizing something The program is purely formal but the intentional states are not in that way formal Defined in terms of content and not their form like the sense of rain Mental states and events are a product of the operation of the brain but the program is not in that way a product of the computer For simulation all you need is the right input and output - that is all a computer does.

searle Chinese room

Makes an example of how he is locked in a room and given a first batch of chinese symbols with him not knowing chinese, then given another batch that is in english which is the story and then the third batch which is also in english is the questions for the story. Let's say he got really good at answering these questions in chinese and english - it would more be that he produce the answers by manipulating uninterpreted formal symbols - behave like a computer you do not understand a word of the chinese stories. You have inputs and outputs that are indistinguishable from those of a chinese native speaker the conclusion of this narrow argument (chinese room) is that running a program cannot endow the system with language understanding.

8th objection paley (matter)

Objection: One knows nothing at all about the matter. Paley's response: Certainly, by seeing the parts of the watch (re the universe), one can know the design. he knows enough for this argument

3rd objection paley (function)

Objection: Some parts of the watch (re the universe) seem to have no function and so would seemingly not be designed. it would sometimes go wrong Paley's response: Simply because we do not know the function of the parts does not imply that the parts have no function. He believes the design is evident from observing the rest of the watch (re the universe).

7th objection paley (law)

Objection: The watch (re the universe) came about as a result of the laws of metallic nature. Paley's response: The presence of a law presupposes a lawgiver.

6th objection paley (existence)

Objection: The watch (re the universe) is no proof of bringing something into existence; only motive induces the mind to think that it is. Paley's response: The design is obvious to an unbiased person.

4th objection paley (chance)

Objection: The watch (re universe) is only one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. Paley's response: The design cannot be a result of chance; no person in his senses could believe this.

5th objection paley (form)

Objection: There is a law or principle that disposed the watch (re universe) to be in that form. Paley's response: The existence of a law presupposes a lawgiver with the power to enforce the law. A principle of order cannot cause or create (the existence of) the watch. (re the universe).

paley analogy

Paley argues that if we were to come across an object, such as a watch on a beach, we would not assume that it had got there by chance since we would notice how complex it is and that its individual parts work together within the mechanisms of the watch. Paley likens this to the complexity of the world and argues that the world exhibits similar, if not superior complexity. Therefore, we can infer, since like causes resemble like effects, and both the watch and the world show signs of complex and intelligent mechanisms, both have been designed by an 'intelligent designer'; the watch by humans and the world by God. Therefore, by this argument, Paley concludes that an intelligent God exists and this God created the world.

paley 8 objections

Paley thinks the following excuses (i.e., possible objections) are inadequate to disprove the watchmaker-argument.

Paley Teleological Argument

Paley went on to argue that the complex structures of living things and the remarkable adaptations of plants and animals required an intelligent designer. He believed the natural world was the creation of God and showed the nature of the creator. to prove the existence of God that begins with the observation of the purposiveness of nature. The teleological argument moves to the conclusion that there must exist a designer. the world exhibits an intelligent purpose based on experience from nature such as its order, unity, coherency, design and complexity. Hence, there must be an intelligent designer to account for the observed intelligent purpose and order that we can observe.

searle computers

Premise 1. Computer programs are formal or syntactic. Premise 2. Human minds have mental contents or semantics. Premise 3. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. Conclusion: Computer programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for mind.\

palei teleogical argument premises

Premises 1.)Human artifacts are products of intelligent design. 2.)The universe resembles human artifacts. 3.)Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design. 4.)But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.