Chinese Room Argument as a Response to the Behaviourist's Claim that Research Paper

Chinese Room Argument as a Response to the Behaviourists Claim that Computers Can opine - Research Paper ExampleConsequently, the behaviorists extend this theory to the functioning of computers suggesting that computers can think if they are programmed in a certain way, in which the input/ production behavior of a computer is connected to its mental status. However, the Chinese Room command does non agree with the behaviorists claim, which illustrates that thinking is far from a mere production of an output from a given stimulus (Martin 175). Therefore, in support of the Chinese Room argument, I will argue that computers do non have mental states because they are incapable of thinking, thus, are not intelligent as a human. The Chinese Room argument is one of the examples that present premise to disagree with the notion that computers have a mental state. This argument uses an experiment involving a computer input, output activities of a programmed computer whereby a person who do es not speak Chinese completely somehow manages to manipulate Chinese symbols and produce right responses (Martin 178). In this argument, Searle points out a discussion about cognitive science and artificial intelligence. He argues that artificial intelligence is without any doubt artificial. Therefore, the big question here is, are computers intelligent? I agree with Searles argument that there is no true intelligence for computers. Unlike beings with mental state, computers do understand language, syntax they are just incapable of understanding (semantics) and emotion. This is because these activities require intellect lacking in computers. In addition, for computers to be intelligent it would mean that they have beliefs and other mental states like fear, and hope among other emotions. However, this is not true for computers and machines in general.