Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 3–28 | Cite as

Why not Artificial Consciousness or Thought?

  • Richard H. Schlagel
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to show why consciousness and thought are not manifested in digital computers. Analyzing the rationale for claiming that the formal manipulation of physical symbols in Turing machines would emulate human thought, the article attempts to show why this proved false. This is because the reinterpretation of ‘designation’ and ‘meaning’ to accommodate physical symbol manipulation eliminated their crucial functions in human discourse. Words have denotations and intensional meanings because the brain transforms the physical stimuli received from the microworld into a qualitative, macroscopic representation for consciousness. Lacking this capacity as programmed machines, computers have no representations for their symbols to designate and mean. Unlike human beings in which consciousness and thought, with their inherent content, have emerged because of their organic natures, serial processing computers or parallel distributed processing systems, as programmed electrical machines, lack these causal capacities.

physical symbols formal programs neural networks designation interpretation representation semantics intensional meaning extensional meaning causal capacities emergence levels 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alt, F.L. (1960), Advances in Computers, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1960), ‘The present status of automatic translation of languages,’ in: ed. F.L. Alt. Advances in Computers, Vol. I.Google Scholar
  3. Churchland, P.M. (1979), Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Churchland, P.M. (1988), Matter and Consciousness, revised ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Churchland, P.S. (1986), Neurophilosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cowan, J.D. and Sharp, D.H. (1988), Real Brains and Artificial Intelligence. in: ed. S.R. Graubard, The Artificial Intelligence Debate.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, P. (1984), God & The New Science, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  8. Dawkins, R. (1987), The Blind Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1988), ‘Making a mind versus modeling the brain: artificial intelligence back at a branchpoint,’ in: (ed). S.R. Graubard, The Artificial Intelligence Debate.Google Scholar
  10. Dreyfus, H.L. (1992), What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, H. (1974), The Shattered Mind, New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gell-Mann, M. (1994), The Quark and the Jaguar, New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  13. Graubard, S.R. (ed.) (1988), The Artificial Intelligence Debate, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gregory, R.L. (1981), Mind In Science, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  15. Haugeland, J. (ed.) (1981), Mind Design, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Haugeland, J. (1985), Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hebb, D.O. (1949), The Organization of Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Hobbes, T. (1958), Leviathan, New York: Library of Liberal Arts.Google Scholar
  19. Hofstadter, D.R. and Dennett, D.C. (1981), The Mind's I, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Lauria, A.R. (1972), The Man with a Shattered World, trans. by Lynn Solotaroff, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. McCulloch, W.S. and Pitts, W.H. (1943), ‘A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity,’ Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 5: pp. 115.Google Scholar
  22. McGinn, C. (1991), The Problem of Consciousness, Oxford: Blackwell's.Google Scholar
  23. Minsky, M. and Papert, S. (1969), Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nagel, T. (1974), ‘What it is like to be a bat?’ The Philosophical Review 83: 435–450.Google Scholar
  25. Newell, A. and Simon, H.S. (1958), ‘Heuristic problem solving: the next advance in operations research.’ Operations Research (January-February) 6, in: (ed.), S.R. Graubard, The Artificial Intelligence Debate.Google Scholar
  26. Newell, A. and Simon, H.S. (1976), ‘Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search.’ Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 19: pp. 113–126, in: (ed.) J. Haugeland, Mind Design, 1981.Google Scholar
  27. Prigogine, Ilya and Stengers, I. (1984), Order Out Of Chaos, New York: Bantom Books.Google Scholar
  28. Reek, G.N. and Edelman, G.M. (1988), ‘Real Brains and Artificial Intelligence,’ in: (ed.) S.R. Graubard. The Artificial Intelligence Debate.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenblatt, F. (1958a), ‘The perceptron, A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain,’ Psychological Review 62: 386.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenblatt, F. (1958b), Mechanization of Thought Processes: Proceedings of a Symposium held at the National Physical Laboratory. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1: 449, in: (ed.) S.R. Graubard, The Artificial Intelligence Debate.Google Scholar
  31. Rumelhart, D.E. and McClelland, J.L. and the PDP Research Group (1986), ‘Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition,’ Vol. I., Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (1995), ‘Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach’, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Sarton, G. (1959), A History of Science, Vol. II, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schlagel, R. (1977), ‘The mind-brain identity impasse,’ American Philosophical Ouarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3.Google Scholar
  35. Schlagel, R. (1986), Contextual Realism: A Meta-Physical Framework for Modern Science, New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  36. Searle, J.R. (1980), ‘Mind, brains, and programs.’ The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: pp. 417–457, in: (ed.) D.R. Hofstadter and D.C. Dennett, The Mind's Eye, 353–373.Google Scholar
  37. Searle, J.R. (1983), Intentionality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Searle, J.R. (1992), The Rediscovery of Mind, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sokolowski, R. (1988), ‘Natural and artificial intelligence,’ in: (ed.), S.R. Graubard, The Artificial Intelligence Debate.Google Scholar
  40. Tarski, A. (1944), ‘The semantic conception of truth,’ Philosophy and Phnomenological Research, 4.Google Scholar
  41. Time (1997), ‘IBM OWES MANKIND A REMATCH.’Google Scholar
  42. Turing, A.M. (1950), ‘Computing machinery and intelligence.’ Mind LIX: 234, in: (ed.) D.R. Hofstadter and D.C. Dennett, The Mind's Eye.Google Scholar
  43. Weinberg, S. (1992), Dreams of a Final Theory, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  44. Winograd, T. (1972), Understanding Natural Language, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wittgenstein, L. (1961), Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. by D.F Pears and B.F. McGuinness, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Wittgenstein, L. (1958), Philosophical Investigations, trans. by G.E.M Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard H. Schlagel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe George Washington UniversityWashington, D.C.USA

Personalised recommendations