Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence - Is Thinking A Kind of Computation?

Is Thinking A Kind of Computation?

This issue is of primary importance to cognitive scientists, who study the nature of human thinking and problem solving.

The computational theory of mind or "computationalism" claims that the relationship between mind and brain is similar (if not identical) to the relationship between a running program and a computer. The idea has philosophical roots in Hobbes (who claimed reasoning was "nothing more than reckoning"), Leibniz (who attempted to create a logical calculus of all human ideas), Hume (who thought perception could be reduced to "atomic impressions") and even Kant (who analyzed all experience as controlled by formal rules). The latest version is associated with philosophers Hilary Putnam and Jerry Fodor.

This question bears on our earlier questions: if the human brain is a kind of computer then computers can be both intelligent and conscious, answering both the practical and philosophical questions of AI. In terms of the practical question of AI ("Can a machine display general intelligence?"), some versions of computationalism make the claim that (as Hobbes wrote):

  • Reasoning is nothing but reckoning

In other words, our intelligence derives from a form of calculation, similar to arithmetic. This is the physical symbol system hypothesis discussed above, and it implies that artificial intelligence is possible. In terms of the philosophical question of AI ("Can a machine have mind, mental states and consciousness?"), most versions of computationalism claim that (as Stevan Harnad characterizes it):

  • Mental states are just implementations of (the right) computer programs

This is John Searle's "strong AI" discussed above, and it is the real target of the Chinese room argument (according to Harnad).

Read more about this topic:  Philosophy Of Artificial Intelligence

Famous quotes containing the words thinking and/or kind:

    Man is but a reed, the feeblest one in nature; but he is a thinking reed. The entire universe need not arm itself to crush him—a vapor, a drop of water suffices to kill him. But if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of this.
    Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)

    For everything that’s lovely is
    But a brief, dreamy, kind delight.
    William Butler Yeats (1865–1939)