Do Computers Think? Philisophical Peper

The question of whether or not computers think is one that is discussed by many philosophers. I believe this question is useful because it is something that decades ago would not have been important. Computers are machines that have not always been around, and through technological advancements have become far more complex than those in the past believed could happen. I for one never believed that we would have machines that could give us answers to math problems that seemed unlikely to answer in less than half an hour in one minute, with all work being shown. This leads people to wonder if a computer can do so much who are we to say that they cannot think. These two questions have been pondered and answered by two different philosophers who have opposite arguments. Turing believes that computers in fact do have the ability to think, however if we look at the argument Seale makes while countering Turing’s, you will be able to see that computers do not actually produce thoughts. I agree with Seale’s argument that computers do not think, and that although they are able to do many things they cannot actually have thoughts.
Computers are unable to think, because they are only capable of manipulating answers that are already there. Computers are able to update themselves in order to get better and more concise answers. “By observing the results of its own behavior it can modify its own programs so as to achieve some purpose more effectively.” (Turing 1950) Here Turing states himself that machines are able to modify its programs in order to work better, this is his closing statement in his argument. Turing states that machines are intelligent enough to modify itself depending on the situation, but being a thinking thing does not only have one characteristic. In order to be considered a thinking thing the ability to only modify one’s self is not enough. What I can see from this is that Turing believes that the definition of the word ‘think’ is greatly exaggerated in Turing’s mind in order for his argument to run smoothly. “Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it…” (Turing 1950) Turing here refers to the word ‘think’ and to his imitation game study. The imitation game study was something Turing came up with, and consisted of three people; an interrogator, ‘A’, and ‘B’. In some cases ‘A’ would be substituted for a machine. One person would have the role of interrogator, and the person playing as ‘A’ would try to trick the interrogator into thinking they were the a different sex whereas ‘B’ would try to help. The machine would sometimes play further proving Turing’s theory. Turing believed that if over 70% of machines were able to trick interrogators into thinking they were human than in fact machines could think. (Turing 1950) The problem with this in my opinion is that these machines are programmed to trick you; they have no original ideas, but only those of which that have already been said. An argument that could be put against my opinion is that when we form an opinion based off of others thoughts, but a machine does not have the chance to decided which opinion they believe in, instead just picking one and going with it. Turing states that machines can become life like but to do so would be pointless. “Possibly a machine might be made to enjoy this delicious dish, but any attempt to make one do so would be idiotic…”(Turing 1950) although it may be idiotic it is still important allowing others to have a connection with the machine which allows ourselves to value it like we value others. Searle’s argument counters Turing’s whole game explaining that “a computer following its program does not give it thought.” (Searle 1990) I believe this to be true, and although Turing tries to change the meaning of ‘think’ so that it is similar to the original Searle points out that once it is changed it has a different interpretation.
Searle is able to prove that machines are not able to think in the traditional sense of the word. We can create a different meaning to the word thought, but then it becomes a whole other word and the purpose of the question is misled. Although a machine is able to trick a human into thinking it itself is human does not mean that the machine becomes human. Searle responds to Turing’s argument by saying, “This is a completely different question because it is not about the physical, causal properties of actual or possible physical systems…” (Searle 1990) Searle is showing that a machine does not add up to these properties and systems that we as humans have while we are thinking. I believe that we are able to understand our thoughts whereas machines only have the ability to come to conclusions. They do not show thought but more so the outcome from a thought. For example when we make a decision we go through a thought process, and weigh out the wrongs and rights. However a machine would understand what is right and what is wrong, probably going with the decision that is positive, but they would not be able to comprehend why something is wrong and vice versa. Searle uses an example of him going into an experiment where he has to use symbols only in Chinese and a rulebook in English to complete the task. He uses this example to disprove Turing’s theory which in my opinion he does very well. Searle shows that although he is able to complete the game of matching the Chinese symbols together in order to form sentences, he is only able to do so because of the rule book in English. When Searle’s task is complete in the example he hands it off to people who do speak Chinese. These people than believe Searle was able to successfully complete it and understand Chinese, but Searle walks away knowing he does not and will not, if only using that strategy to do so. This shows that Turing may be able to create a machine that can trick a human but the machine will never understand how to do it on its own. “Like a computer, I manipulate symbols, but I attach no meaning to the symbols.” (Searle 1950) It is not enough to just manipulate the symbols, but to hold meaning to each symbol in order to fully grasp it and be able to use it in the future. Machine’s do not have the understanding to think the way that humans do, furthermore proving Searle’s idea.
I do not believe that machines are as technologically advanced as Turing believed them to be. It seems to me that although machines are by far better at getting information quickly, we still have a thought process which makes us different. Turing believes that machines do think and that we may share that in common, but Turing believes in the word ‘think’ as something different. Searle goes against Turing and shows that machines may produce many useful things, but thought is not one. Searle effectively proves that when thinking of the word thought, it comes with understanding and perception two things machines cannot do while mechanically manipulating symbols into answers.

Works Cited
Alan Turing (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. In Steven M. Cahn (Ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (144-148). New York: Oxford University Press.
John Searle (1990). Do Computers Think? In Steven M. Cahn(Ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (148-150). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cited: Alan Turing (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. In Steven M. Cahn (Ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (144-148). New York: Oxford University Press. John Searle (1990). Do Computers Think? In Steven M. Cahn(Ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (148-150). New York: Oxford University Press.