Introduction
John Searle argues against the view that a properly programmed computer could think. He goes ahead to describe the differences between strong AI and weak AI in the following manner. He says that according to strong AI (Artificial Intelligence), the computer is a mind if it is well programmed, that is, it can be said to understand things if it is given the correct programs. Therefore, it is not only used as equipment in the study of the mind.
A computer that is instructed with the right programs can be useful in the explanation of the psychological interpretation. However, strong AI is contradicting Weak AI (Artificial Intelligence), which is based on the belief that a computer is only a strong tool in the learning of the mind, but cannot think on its own. Its only advantage is that it can be used in the testing and formulation of hypotheses clearly and faster (Thorne, p. 36).
According to Strong AI, the computer is expected to give similar answers just like a human would, if presented with the similar or same problem, story or question. In this view, the computer is not only imitating the ability of man to solve complex issues but also shows a clear understanding of questions, hence the ability to provide correct answers. It also assumes that computer and their installed programs illustrate the ability of humans to understand that the latter is able to interpret the same question in a similar way.
However, it has been argued that not all information one feeds into a computer will be efficiently understood. The common reason given for this belief is that even a human being is in a position to follow instructions without clearly understanding anything (Searle 28). This view is also based on the belief that thinking according to strong Artificial Intelligence (AI) is linked to manipulation of certain symbols. Therefore, a well-programmed computer is in a position to think like a human being, portraying the real mind.
Searle’s Chinese Room on the other hand is concerned with the claims of strong AI. One of the most concerns is the assumption that a computer does think or it will someday do just like humans. According to Searle’s argument, thinking is based on the truth of the mind and the brain, which computers do not possess. He states that a computer is just a machine that relies on programs, hence does not have a real mind and brain to think. In this argument, Searle states that Weak Artificial Intelligence is more convincing as a computer is not in a position to understand anything, except that it is useful in the study of physical phenomena.
Searle poses a question concerning a person who is an English speaker, locked up in a room, and then given three papers: the first paper with the Chinese writings, a second paper containing Chinese scripts, and the third paper having rules written in English. In this process, the person is able to identify the symbols by their shapes. He is also able to compare these symbols with instructions given in English so as to respond to the questions, but in a real sense, the person understands nothing about the story and script, thus acting like a computer.
Searle says that the person has everything Artificial Intelligence can put in him, but he understands no word in Chinese rules in the story, despite the fact that he’s well conversant with instructions written in English. He, therefore, concludes that a computer, however much program if fed, is still behaving like an unintelligent gadget; the symbols it contains are completely useless. A computer cannot think because it lacks intelligence, hence no mental state.
Functionalists System Reply Theory
According to functionalist theory, it is hypothetical to state that a well-programmed individual can speak both English and Chinese at the same time, despite the fact that he knows nothing in the latter. This view is based on the belief that a program can play a designated role, as well as play an equally important mental need just like a human brain would operate with mastered information. However, the system reply refutes this ability and points out the fact that an English speaker in a Chinese room functions as just a unit of a whole room component comprised of him, the wall, the books, and the floor. These components do not understand the issue on their individual basis, but work as one unit to conceptualize the idea. Computer as a machine is still reliant on the software programs that can be changed according to the demands or the needs of the intended user.
However, it was possible that the person could internalize the system by cramming the rules given and finding other clues about the story. This shows that the person could be assumed to be conversant in Chinese, yet in reality he understands nothing. This is how a computer work as it contains every component which makes others to erroneously assume that it can think and understand. In other words, despite the fact that a computer has all the components clustered into one, they cannot understand the multiple components it is fed in the form of programs.
Conclusion
One can understand nothing in Chinese, just like a computer system would fail to understand certain commands, but he can learn with time and make a substantial conclusion of what is needed. This is what constitutes thinking. The explanation is that everything in the human system is the person; so if he does get the clue of the story, it is because he can conceptualize the whole idea of what is needed.
But a computer system may encounter some problems and fail, especially when it is faulty in one way or another, and everything stops from working. This means that a computer will never develop any clue to come up with the slightest idea of what the command means; thus a computer cannot think. This disapproves of the concept of strong artificial intelligence.
Works Cited
Searle, John. “Is the Brain’s Mind a Computer Program?” Scientific American, Vol. 262, No 1, 1990, pp. 26-31.
Thorne, Paul. A computer model for the perception of syntactic structure. New York: Roy &company, 1968.