Page 105 - Foundations of Cognitive Psychology : Core Readings

106 John R. Searle

5.6 The Many Mansions Reply (Berkeley)
‘‘Your whole argument presupposes that AI is only about analogue and digital
computers. But that just happens to be the present state of technology. What-
ever these causal processes are that you say are essential for intentionality
(assuming you are right), eventually we will be able to build devices that
have these causal processes, and that will be artificial intelligence. So your
arguments are in no way directed at the ability of artificial intelligence to pro-
duce and explain cognition.’’
I really have no objection to this reply save to say that it in effect trivializes
the project of strong AI by redefining it as whatever artificially produces and
explains cognition. The interest of the original claim made on behalf of artificial
intelligence is that it was a precise, well defined thesis: mental processes are
computational processes over formally defined elements. I have been concerned
to challenge that thesis. If the claim is redefined so that it is no longer that thesis,
my objections no longer apply because there is no longer a testable hypothesis
for them to apply to.
Let us now return to the question I promised I would try to answer: granted
that in my original example I understand the English and I do not understand
the Chinese, and granted therefore that the machine doesn’t understand either
English or Chinese, still there must be something about me that makes it the
case that I understand English and a corresponding something lacking in me
that makes it the case that I fail to understand Chinese. Now why couldn’t we
give those somethings, whatever they are, to a machine?
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. But I do see very strong arguments for
saying that we could not give such a thing to a machine where the operation of
the machine is defined solely in terms of computational processes over formally
defined elements; that is, where the operation of the machine is defined as an
instantiation of a computer program. It is not because I am the instantiation of
a computer program that I am able to understand English and have other forms
of intentionality (I am, I suppose, the instantiation of any number of computer
programs), but as far as we know it is because I am a certain sort of organism
with a certain biological (i.e. chemical and physical) structure, and this struc-
ture, 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. Perhaps other physical and chemical
processes could produce exactly these effects; perhaps, for example, Martians
also have intentionality but their brains are made of different stuff. That is
an empirical question, rather like the question whether photosynthesis can be
done by something with a chemistry different from that of chlorophyll.
Butthe main pointofthe presentargument isthatnopurelyformalmodel
will ever be sufficient by itself for intentionality because the formal properties
are not by themselves constitutive of intentionality, and they have by them-
selves no causal powers except the power, when instantiated, to produce the
next stage of the formalism when the machine is running. And any other causal