Can machines think? Turing: bad question
 Rather, what would we conclude if the answers given by a machine didn't allow us to distinguish between the computer answers and human answers?

Reasons to think that imitation game success wouldn't demonstrate that a machine was thinking:
 1) consciousness
 2) argument from disabilities
 3)Lady Lovelace's objection: it does not create
 4) Arg. From Informality of Behaviour

Searle-"Minds, Brains and Programs"
  weak A.I.-the computer is a powerful tool for studying the mind
  strong A.I.-the appropriately programmed computer is a mind and can be said to understand, the program explains human cognition.

(What is the strong A.I. interpretation of a Turing test? A program that passes the Turing test is thinking and in replicating our responses explains how we think.)

Chinese room example shows that a computer program neither understands nor explains our understanding since no understanding is going on.

Replies to the Chinese room example:
 a) systems reply: understanding is ascribed to the entire system
 b) robot reply
 c) brain simulator
 d) other minds
 e) many mansions reply
 According to Searle, a machine could think (after all, we're machines)
 -But, instantiating a program isn't understanding since formal symbol manipulations have no intentionality

Where does the "mind:brain = program:hardware" analogy break down?
 i) programs can have realizations that clearly have no intentionality
 ii) programs are purely formal, intentional states aren't, they're defined in terms of content not form. (e.g. "pain" and "douleur" have nothing in common formally but have the same content.)
 iii) mental states are products of the brain, program is not a product of the computer

Why do people believe that mental processes are programs?
 i) a confusion about the meaning of information processing, (the digital computer only manipulates formal symbols)
 ii) residual behaviorism
 iii)residual dualism!
 
BACK TO COURSE PAGE