| authors |
Searle, John R. |
| year |
1980 |
| title |
Minds, Brains, and Programs |
| source |
The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Cambridge University Press., 1980. vol. 3: pp. 417-457. includes bibliography |
| summary |
This article can be viewed as an attempt to explore the consequences of two propositions: (1) Intentionallity in human beings (and animals) is a product of causal features of the brain. The author assumes this is an empirical fact about the actual causal relations between mental processes and brains. It says simply that certain brain processes are sufficient for intentionallity. (2) Instantiating a computer program is never by itself a sufficient condition of intentionallity. The main argument of this paper is directed at establishing this claim. The form of the argument is to show how a human agent could instantiate the program and still not have the relevant intentionallity. These two propositions have the following consequences: (3) The explanation of how the brain produces intentionallity cannot be that it does it by instantiating a computer program. This is a strict logical consequence of 1 and 2. (4) Any mechanism capable of producing intentionallity must have causal powers equal to those of the brain. This is meant to be a trivial consequence of 1. (5) Any attempt literally to create intentionallity artificially (strong AI) could not succeed just by designing programs but would have to duplicate the causal powers of the human brain. This follows from 2 and 4. 'Could a machine think?' On the argument advanced here only a machine could think, and only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines withÔ
h) 0*0*0*°°
Ԍ internal causal powers equivalent to those of brains |
| keywords |
And that is why strong AI has little to tell us about thinking, since |
| series |
CADline |
| references |
Content-type: text/plain
|
| last changed |
2003/06/02 10:24 |
|
