The ready reckoner's decisions argon make on the basis of precise and rapid extended computations, whereas the kind player takes advantage of "judgments," that rely upon comparatively slow aware assessments. These human judgments serve to cut down drastically the tour of serious possibilities that need to be considered at each full stop of calculation, and much greater depth can be achieved in the analysis, when the time is available, than in the machine's evidently calculating and directly eliminating possibilities, without apply such judgments (Penrose 13).
Such judgments, then, would be seen as the essence of human intelligence and thus of what we call thought, and the purpose of AI researchers is to pee a machine that can make judgments rather than simply testing calculations. We think we would be able to tell when a machine is making judgments and when it is only analyzing and calculating possibilities, and this has become an arouse argument in considering the questions of whether reckoners can think. In 1991 a tourney was held in Boston. A group of human judges were elect to engage in a battle of wits with a handful of computer programs. The judges type
To Searle a program that passed the Turing test would be an excellent mannequin of thinking, but he would insist that the map is not the territory, that the computer does not really think. Thinking is something only humans do, grow perhaps in brain chemistry (Johnson 249).
d questions into computer terminals, and they would then try to ascertain by the answers they received whether they were talk of the town to a human being or a computer. This was the prototypic attempt to run a Turing Test, a test proposed by Alan M. Turing in 1950 as a way of deciding whether a machine could think (Markoff 1).
John Searle is a philosopher who has considered what the computer has in common with the human heading, and he finds not only that computers are not presently that much like the human mind but also that building a computer with coloured intelligence can never be accomplished:
This is base on an example in which the respective(prenominal) works in a room. The person understands only English. Strips of paper are fixed under the door with Chinese writing on them, and the unmarried is to write sensible Chinese replies and push them back out. Searle says that the individual acts here as the CPU of a computer sideline a computer program that describes the symbol processing an a Chinese speaker's head, with the program written in English in the room. The governing body's reply says that the whole ashes understands Chinese even though the man who is acting as the CPU does not. Searle imagines the paraphernalia of the system internalized. The CPU is just one of many components, and if the whole system understands Chinese, this should not lead us to think that the CPU understands Chinese. Searle's main conclusion is that representing the abstraction of thought in a computer program is never by itself a sufficient retainer of Intentionality, with Intentionality being the characteristic of consciousness whereby that consciousness is aware of or directed toward an object. Searle solves t
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment