Analysis Of Can Computers Think By John Searle
In the article “Can Computers Think,” John Searle makes the claim that computers, while they can simulate understanding or emotions, cannot think in the same way that a human mind can. John Searle objects to what he calls “strong AI,” the claim that the brain is just one type of hardware that can “run” the program that is essentially the human mind, and thus that if computers cannot currently think, they will one day be able to. Searle supports his claim on the basis that while computers run entirely syntactically, viewing information as abstract symbols with no meaning and reacting to them based off of their shape, the human mind has the additional layer of semantics that can not be obtained from syntax alone. Thus, John Searle proves that no matter how advanced technology becomes, a computer will never think in the same way that a human can. In order to understand what Searle’s argument is, it is crucial to understand the question that he is answering: can a digital computer think, and thus have feelings, emotions, and opinions? Searle gives a definitive no. In order to prove
…show more content…
However, if instead of a room, one was in a robot whose different actions triggered different words, then eventually the symbols would begin to mean something. Searle makes the claim that this is irrelevant to the person in the room: no matter what triggers the word being given, all one receives is the symbol. There is no image to accompany it, as computers process symbols and nothing but symbols. Since there is no way to represent the context of the words in a way that is readable by a computer, anything but 0s and 1s, or, in this case, Chinese symbols, there is no way for the words to gain meaning. Thus, there must be something in thought that cannot be represented purely by
However, if instead of a room, one was in a robot whose different actions triggered different words, then eventually the symbols would begin to mean something. Searle makes the claim that this is irrelevant to the person in the room: no matter what triggers the word being given, all one receives is the symbol. There is no image to accompany it, as computers process symbols and nothing but symbols. Since there is no way to represent the context of the words in a way that is readable by a computer, anything but 0s and 1s, or, in this case, Chinese symbols, there is no way for the words to gain meaning. Thus, there must be something in thought that cannot be represented purely by