Mind & Thought

What’s up

❄Argument from Possibility❄Argument from Privileged

Access❄Chinese Room Argument❄Descartes’ argument

against animal minds

Will you survive your bodily death?

Core elements of Near-Death Experiences

(Long and Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife.)1.Out-of-body experience2.Intense and generally positive

emotions3.Passing through a tunnel4.Encountering a mystical or

brilliant light5.Having a life review

What am I?

Brain = Mind?❄Brain

❊Tissue❊Neural networks

❄Mind❊Thoughts, emotions,

conscious experiences

The SoulSubstance dualism ❄Human beings are

made up of 2 distinct substances

(i.e. body + soul)

Argument from Possibility

MatrixAppearance & Reality❄It is logically possible

that what we perceive is not real.

❄It is true that what we perceive is not real (?)

Distinctions

Logically possible

True

Is it possible that you are now dreaming?

Possibilities in this dream

Scenario 1

It is impossible that I am conscious, yet I don’t exist.

Scenario 2My body

existsMy body doesn’t

existI exist I exist

BODY I ?Property of

“possibly existing while

your body does not exist”

Lacks property of

“possibly existing while

your body does not exist”

Diversity of DiscerniblesIf X has property P, but Y lacks property P, then X is not the same thing as Y.

“Property P”

Argument from Possibility1) If I have the property P, but my

body lacks the property P, then I am not the same thing as my body.

2) I have the property P, but my body lacks the property P.

3) Therefore, I am not the same thing as my body.

Diversity of Discernible

s

Dream example

Conclusion

Is it possible?❄It seems to me that X is true.❄‘But it is possible that X is not true’

❊i.e. I may be mistaken that X is true❄‘But if X isn’t true, then what is true?’

Must we know what is true before we can tell that it’s possible that X isn’t true?

Example❄I seem to see a puppy.❄I have taken a drug

which makes me see all living things as puppies.

❄“It is logically possible that this is not a puppy”❊Do you agree?

This could be really a puppy… but it could also be a kitten, or some living thing I don’t know about

Hmmm…

Descartes’ Meditations

“So I shall suppose that some malicious, powerful, cunning demon has done all he can to deceive me…I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely dreams that the demon has contrived as traps for my judgment. I shall consider myself as having no hands or eyes, or flesh, or blood or senses, but as having falsely believed that I had all these things.”

It is logically possible that an evil demon is now deceiving you into thinking you have a body.

It is logically impossible that an evil demon is now deceiving you into thinking you exist.

It is logically possible that you exist while your body does not exist.

“Well, then, what am I? A thing that thinks.

What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses.”

I am a soul

We will die. Our bodies

will disintegrate.

We are souls. Will we continue

to exist?

Argument from privileged access

Think of a number

What number did your neighbour think of?

❄Questioning, history, facial cues, etc

❄Check brain❊Correlation between brain

states and mental statesThere is a truth of the matter about what number your neighbour thought of.

How do we discover

that truth?

Compare❄We might tell

what you are thinking by indirect methods

❄But how do you tell what you are thinking?

By thinking

it

Privileged access❄You always have privileged

access to your own thoughts, emotions and experiences

❄You can directly know what you are thinking, feeling and perceiving

❄Others can only know indirectly

What is the number on this slide?

1

Public access❄No one always has privileged access

to the physical world

❄Counter-examples?❊The physical objects in your house?

A comparisonBody

❄ You find out about it in the same way others find out about it

❄ 3rd person point of view

Mind

You find out about it in a different way compared with how others find out about it

1st person point of view

BODY MIND ?Property of

“always having privileged

access”

Lacks property of

“always having privileged

access”

Diversity of DiscerniblesIf X has property P, but Y lacks property P, then X is not the same thing as Y.

“Property P”

Part 2

Pain & Pain behaviour

Pain + pain behaviour

Pain behaviour

Encountering a Zombie❄Definition of a

Zombie❊Looks exactly like

humans❊Behaves exactly like

humans❊But has NO

consciousness

Could your neighbour be a

Zombie?

Are you conscious?

How do you

know?

BODY MIND ?Property of

“always having privileged

access”

Lacks property of

“always having privileged

access”

Diversity of DiscerniblesIf X has property P, but Y lacks property P, then X is not the same thing as Y.

“Property P”

The general argument1. If I have the property P, but

my body lacks the property P, then I am not the same thing as my body.

2. I have the property P, but my body lacks the property P.

3. Therefore, I am not the same thing as my body.

Diversity of Discernibles

Reflection

Conclusion

What am I?‘The brain begins to seem like a magic box, a font of sorcery…how can sending an electric current into a bunch of cells produce conscious experience?

What do electricity and cells have to do with conscious subjectivity? How could a conscious self exist inside such a soggy clump?’

- Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame

Review❄ Brain & Mind❄ Substance dualism❄ Empirical vs Philosophical argument for

DualismThe Argument from Possibility❄ Logically possible vs True❄ Diversity of DiscerniblesThe argument from Privileged Access❄ Behaviour & Mental states❄ Zombies❄ Private vs Public access

What are we?

❄Souls?

❄Complex Machines?

❄Utterly different from (other) animals?

How do you tell if some entity is intelligent?

The Turing Test

Searle’s target❄Strong vs Weak AI

❄Passing the Turing Test proves:❊The computer understands what it is told (?)❊And it explains human ability to understand and

respond accordingly (?)

❄“The claim that 1. appropriately programmed computers literally

have cognitive states and that 2. the programs thereby explain human cognition.”

The Chinese Room Argument

Ask yourself what it would be like if your mind actually works in the way this theory says all minds work.

The Chinese Room Scenario❄Assume you don’t know Chinese❄Suppose you’re locked in a room &

given a passage of Chinese writing

❄Thereafter, suppose you’re given a collection of notes with Chinese writing, together with a set of rules for correlating the passages with the notes

❄The rules are in English, which you know

The Chinese Room Scenario❄ The rules tell you how to give back a

specific note with certain Chinese symbols in response to how the initial passage of Chinese writing looks like

❄ This process continues for some time❊Receive initial passage of Chinese

writing❊Check English rules to determine which

note to give back

See this, thenreturn this

The Chinese Room ScenarioUnknown to you, those who give you the Chinese writing believe:❄The initial passages of Chinese

writing = ‘Questions for you’❄The rules = ‘The Program’❄The notes I give back =

‘Your answers to our questions’

Evaluation❄After a long time, you become

very good at receiving passages, checking the rules and then returning notes.

❄You have inputs and outputs that are indistinguishable from the expert Chinese speaker

❄But do you understand Chinese?

See this, thenreturn this

Searle’s target❄Passing the Turing Test proves:

❊The computer understands what it is told (?)❊And it explains human ability to understand

and respond accordingly (?)❄ Strong vs Weak AI❄“The claim that

1. appropriately programmed computers literally have cognitive states and that

2. the programs thereby explain human cognition.”

Searle’s target❄Passing the Turing Test proves:

❊The computer understands what it is told (?)❊And it explains human ability to understand

and respond accordingly (?)❄ Strong vs Weak AI❄“The claim that

1. appropriately programmed computers literally have cognitive states and that

2. the programs thereby explain human cognition.”

English Room Scenario❄Suppose instead you’re now locked into a

room and given English questions instead

❄You are given a pen and blank paper to write responses.

❄You then given back what you’ve written.

❄Your inputs and outputs are distinct from the expert English speaker

Do you display the same understanding?

Chinese Room Scenario

English Room Scenario

Given Passages + Program +

Returned Notes

Given Passages + Mind +

Returned Notes

Searle’s target❄Passing the Turing Test proves:

❊The computer understands what it is told (?)❊And it explains human ability to understand

and respond accordingly (?)❄ Strong vs Weak AI❄“The claim that

1. appropriately programmed computers literally have cognitive states and that

2. the programs thereby explain human cognition.”

Computing, not thinking“From the external point of view – from the point of view of someone reading my ‘answers’ – the answers to the Chinese questions and the English questions are equally good. But in the Chinese case, unlike the English case, I produce the answers by manipulating uninterpreted formal symbols.

As far as the Chinese is concerned, I simply behave like a computer; I perform computational operations on formally specified elements.”

What does the argument show?

❄The computer understands nothing

❄The computer’s activity does not parallel human understanding❊Difference in kind, not degree

❄Not about the type of rules used to determine the input-output relation

See this, thenreturn this

Intentionality❄‘Aboutness’❄The content of mental states❄‘Intentional states’ = state of being

about something

What the difference between the meaning of ‘red’ and

‘blue’?Colour & Number?

Objections❄Searle considers 7

objections❄How would you address

those objections?❊See if you can anticipate

his responses❄Compare your response

to Searle’s and analyse the difference

Objection 1: Different understanding❄ ‘There are different kinds of

understanding.’❄Searle: “There are clear cases in

which ‘understanding’ literally applies and clear cases in which it does not apply; and these two sorts of cases are all I need for this argument.”

❄ “The computer understanding is not just (like my understanding of German) partial or incomplete; it is zero.”

What about everyday examples?

❄“The door knows when to open because of its photoelectric cell”

❄“The adding machine knows how to do addition and subtraction but not division”

“The reason we make these attributions is quite interesting, and it has to do with the fact that in artifacts we extend our own intentionality, our tools are extensions of our purposes, and so we find it natural to make metaphorical attributions of intentionality to them”

Objection 2: Systems, not parts

❄Understanding ascribed to the whole system of which the individual is a part❊Rules, data, paper, etc

Searle’s reply:❄Let the person be the system by

internalising all the parts❄“All the same, he understands nothing of the

Chinese” [Therefore, the same goes for the system which is in him.]

Comparison❄Formal symbol

manipulation system

❄Pattern of ink❄‘squiggle squiggle’

is followed by ‘squoggle squoggle’

❄Language expert

❄‘Apple’❄‘How are you?’ =

how are you?

Understanding of the message?

Understanding of the message?

…& it leads to absurdity❄Systems reply

claims anything with input-output process guided by a program has understanding.Stomach (Digestion)?Heart? Liver?

Absurd to think it has understanding

Absurd to think it this is true

Reading a philosophy essay❄Method

❊Understanding reasoning

❊Examining principles❊Considering thought

experiments❊Grasping distinctions

❄Big picture❊How all sections are

linked

Suggestion:

Start by understanding the overall structure of the essay

Then proceed to examine specific parts.

(“What is the author trying to do here?”)

Reasoning process❄Thought experiment

❊Chinese Room Scenario❄Starting point (Data)

❊“The study of the mind starts with such facts as that humans have beliefs, while thermometers, telephones, and adding machines don’t.”

Testing a philosophical viewPhilosophical

View

Hypothesis/Prediction

Observation/Reflection

Compare

Overview of process

AbstractionDistinction

Thought experiments

Starting point

Objection 3: Other mindsHow do we know that other people have understanding?

Simply by observing their behaviour.

Including what they say and do

We use behavioural

tests

How do we know that machines

have understanding?

Searle’s short reply“The problem in this discussion is not about how I know that other people have cognitive states, but rather what it is that I am attributing to them when I attribute cognitive states to them.

The thrust of the argument is that it couldn’t be just computational processes and their output because the computational processes and their output can exist without the cognitive state.”

“I see no reason in principle why we couldn’t give a machine the capacity to understand English or Chinese, since in an important sense our bodies with our brains are precisely such machines.”

What Searle thinks of himself

“I am a certain sort of organism with a certain biological structure, and this structure, under certain conditions, is causally capable of producing perception, action, understanding, learning, and other intentional phenomena. And part of the point of the present argument is that only something that had those causal powers could have that intentionality.”

Searle’s dialogueCould a machine think?

The answer is, obviously, yes. We are precisely such machines.

Yes, but could an artifact, a man-made machine, think?

Depends on what it is like

Symbols & Meaning❄Symbols don’t

symbolise anything by themselves?

❄Symbolic meaning exist only because there are minds attributing meaning to symbols?

Review❄Strong & Weak AI❄Argument against Strong AI

❊Searle’s Chinese Room Argument❄Objections against Searle’s

argument❄Intentionality❄Computational processes

❊Formal symbol manipulation❄Thinking/understanding

❊Grasping meaning

The Mental & the Physical

No apparent physical properties

Intentionality

Privileged access

Logically possible to exist without the

physical

Length, mass, texture

No apparent intentionality

No privileged access

Logically impossible to exist without the

physical

Is the mind distinct from the brain?

How do we tell if an entity can think?

Descartes: Animals are mindless machinesDo you agree?How do you tell?

Descartes’ Machine TestLanguage Test❄“But it never happens that it arranges its speech

in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do.”

Rationality Test❄“It is impossible that there should be sufficient

diversity in any machine to allow it to act in all the events of life in the same way our reason causes us to act.”

Animals have no language?❄“For if this were true, since

they have many organs which are allied to our own, they could communicate their thoughts to us just as easily as to those of their own race.”

❄If animals have language, then they would be able to communicate to us easily?

Animals have no minds?❄Presence of extremes❄“the fact that they do better than we do, does not

prove that they are endowed with mind, for in this case they would have more reason than any of us, and would surpass us in all other things.”

❄“It rather shows that they have no reason at all, and that it is nature which acts in them according to the disposition of their organs, just as a clock…is able to tell the hours and measure the time more correctly than we can do with all our wisdom.”

How do you tell if some entity is intelligent?