4. (a) What is “Strong AI”?

Strong AI is a feature of computer program to process complex human problems that can also communicate using the human natural language. An example of such a program depicting a strong artificial intelligence is the computer chess game application that at the same converse in the human natural language. Proponents of such a position that computers can be intelligent include Alan Turin. However, according to Searle, by conducting such a complex combination of intelligent activities, computers cannot be said to possess understanding of natural language or even perform complex thinking processes.

What is Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument against strong AI?

Testing a theory of mind in a computer is expected to fail according to Searle’s famous opinion on the Chinese Room explaining opposition of the strong AI in computers. The following words express his dissatisfaction with the argument of a strong AI.

“Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese locked in a room full of boxes of Chinese symbols (a data base) together with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (the program). Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (the input). And imagine that by following the instructions in the program the man in the room is able to pass out Chinese symbols which are correct answers to the questions (the output). The program enables the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese but he does not understand a word of Chinese….” (Cole, 1).

(b) What is the “Robot Reply” to the Chinese Room Argument? [“Minds, Brains and Robots”, pp. 7f]

Robot reply was the strongest indication of philosophical support to John Searle’s argument where a computer in form of a robot confined in a rom failed to understand language. Alternatively, the computer failed to respond to simple interpretation of words that basic intelligent ought to resolve. The room operator in the setup cannot tell the meaning of hamburger in Chinese and the computer likewise fails to understand (Cole, 1). The computer cannot learn like a human being does from a tender age even after being exposed to the hamburger. Semantics interpretation is beyond internal wiring and connections or syntax.

Why might it seem better than the “Systems Reply”?

Another element of input to the system is introduced in the system reply which increases intelligence for the resources in the room which include the human brain. Referred by Searle as the most common reply, this phenomenon interprets the whole setting inside the computer room to incorporate the man in charge into the central processing unit. Despite the unawareness of the Chinese language and symbols, much more intelligent process occur in his head and move about yet not comprehend the Chinese word (Cole, 1).. Searle argues that the entire system includes the man and the machine to solve the problem using a wider input for content to solve symbols and syntaxes.

(c) Why does Searle reject the Robot Reply?

Robot reply is rejected by Searle since the capacity of the machine to respond to learning processes is dependent on extra processes that the computer cannot offer. These extra processing needs cannot be found in the computer made into a robot with virtually all sensory gadgets such as microphones which do not affect interpreting of Chinese words.

(d) Is the Robot Reply a good way of defending Strong AI?

To some extent the robot reply attempts to expound on AI but fails to demonstrate how new learning can be conducted independently by the computer. While the robot may exhibit a limited capacity for intellectual activities, it is still dependent on the human input for extra perception elements that machines cannot achieve. Despite the high quality information processing characteristics that intelligent machines have, the still fall short of certain aspects of a strong AI that natural intelligence exhibits (Cole, 1). 5. (a) Nagel’s argues that a bat’s perceptual experience has a “subjective character…” This is not an easy argument to understand. What is the argument and what, if anything, does it show?

Nagel’s argument explains that certain special types of perception are conditioned on the beholder. In several respects, the sonar phenomenon is a natural perception capacity that is highly expressed in the bat family and studies reveal that certain aspects of the perception can be conditioned in human beings. This inherent capacity for human beings to perceive refined detail in special cases such as in the blind can be extrapolated to imply that normal human perception has some level of unexploited perception characteristics which can become manifested upon some conditioning.

This argument shows that the high perception elements depicted in bats can be reached if the appropriate learning or conditioning is facilitated. If machines are capable of performing certain intelligence features, it remains obvious that humans who have higher capacity than machines can likewise learn that extra intelligence. This argument does not rule out existence of some superior intelligence in the universe depending on the type of environment that the dwellers are exposed to, provided natural conditioning enables such special perception adaptation.

Work Cited

Cole, David, “The Chinese Room Argument”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009. Web. HYPERLINK “http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/chinese-room/” http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/chinese-room/ (accessed 27 July 2011)