A Conversation between Descartes and Searle - 1140 Words

Descartes: One of my greatest powers is the ability to think, considering that it is essentially the only thing that I am unable to doubt. Searle: I partly agree to your statement, but I observe that you are inclined to ignore the concept of technology and the wonders that it can perform. Furthermore, just as you are able to persuade other individuals in thinking that they make decisions for themselves, it is probable that someone else influences you and the decisions that you make without allowing you to understand that you are being manipulated. D: Oh, but Im afraid that you got the wrong impression regarding my thinking. I did not say that I cannot be manipulated, as I simply claimed that me being able to doubt everything but my ability to doubt is equivalent to me having free will. I will always be able to doubt things and this stands as proof that my mind is different from my body as a consequence of the fact that it is thinking. S: It is very likely that information that has been produced consequent to your death made it easier for me to look at things and that I am better prepared to understand how the mind works. As I said, you tend to ignore the fact that technology has advanced greatly and that the Age of Technology provides individuals with a lot of information that they can use with the purpose of developing arguments to support particular points of view. D: I did not say that I am not amazed with the way that technology advanced in the twentieth andShow MoreRelatedThe Mind And Machines, An Oxymoron?1365 Words   |  6 PagesMinds and Machines, an oxymoron? Can machines think? This question, addressed by Descartes and Turing, leads to discussion of how thought is constructed and what is the mind made of. At the heart of the debate, there is a schism between Cartesian dualism and functionalism. Language is a method considered by both sides as evidence of thought and provides the test for intelligence. This essay will look at Descartes’ objections and Turing’s arguments for whether machine can ever think. This essay willRead MoreArtificial Intelligence Is The Dominant Theory1792 Words   |  8 Pagescreature and then obviously felt by humans, aliens and the silicon processing in a robot too, it then only makes sense that a computer is able to understand this as well. To describe ones relation between the mental and physical aspects of their brain, you could consider the mind body dualism. Descartes introduced the mind body dualism in the 17th century. The mind body dualism states that the mind and body are not identical. Which proves how a computer can have a mind like a human and still functionRead More Gilbert Ryles The Concept of Mind Essay2412 Words   |  10 Pagessecond-order ontology is to take the first step in the wrong direction towards intellectual clarity. Thus, with the desire to arrive at this hypothetical locale, the following peripatetic discussion will set out with Ryle at his point of departure, viz. Descartes Myth; it will then survey the lay-of-the-land at Ryles mapped out midway point, viz. Self-Knowledge; and from there, judge whether Ryle himself is headed in the right direction, or, whether despite the ribbons and fan-fare, Ryles excursion takesRead MoreFunctionalism Vs. Cartesian Dualism2009 Words   |  9 Pagesse t of internal states, which are acted upon differently by each specific input. A ‘machine table’ dictates which operation the central processor performs, given its current internal state and the symbol it is currently accessing. The interaction between the symbol detected on the tape and the current internal state of the machine produces an observable output and/or an internal state change. When extrapolated to the mind, the Turing machine model works in a similar way, where the symbol inputs areRead MoreViolation Of The Maxims Of Cooperative Principle7912 Words   |  32 Pagesstudy of sentence structure. Both semantics and pragmatics deal with the study of meaning. The differences between the two are that semantics studies the literal meaning of the word, phrases, sentences, whereas pragmatics deals with contextual meaning. Pragmatics, which studies language in use, can be one of the most effective tools to study literature. There is a sustainable relationship betwee n literature and pragmatics, as the former is context bound and the latter studies the language in context