David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 18 (1):107-120 (2008)
In their Minds and Machines essay How would you know if you synthesized a Thinking Thing? (Kary & Mahner, Minds and Machines, 12(1), 61–86, 2002), Kary and Mahner have chosen to occupy a high ground of materialism and empiricism from which to attack the philosophical and methodological positions of believers in artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial life (AL). In this review I discuss some of their main arguments as well as their philosophical foundations. Their central argument: ‘AI is Platonism’, which is based on a particular interpretation of the notion of ‘definition’ and used as a critique against AI, can be counter criticized from two directions: first, Anti-Platonism is not a necessary precondition for criticizing AI, because outspoken Platonist criticism against AI is already known (Penrose, The emperor’s new mind (with a foreword by M. Gardner), 1989). Second, even in case that AI would essentially be ‘Platonism’ this would not be a sufficient argument for proving AI wrong. In my counter criticism I assume a more or less Popperian position by emphasizing the openness of the future: Not by quasi-Scholastic arguments (like Kary and Mahner’s), but only after being confronted with a novel ‘thinking thing’ by future AI engineers we can start to analyze its particular properties (Let me use a history analogon to illustrate my position: In the 19th century, mechanized aviation was widely regarded impossible—only natural organisms (such as birds or bees) could fly, and any science of aerodynamics or aviation did not exist. Only after some non-scientific technicians had confronted their astonished fellows with the first (obviously) flying machine the science of ‘Artificial Aviation’ came into existence, motivated by the need for understanding and mastering that challenging and puzzling new phenomenon).
|Keywords||AI AL Brain Computability Functionalism Idealism Matter Mind Operationalism Organism Platonism Science of nature Turing Test|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
John R. Searle (1980). Minds, Brains and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):417-57.
Hans-Georg Gadamer (2013). Wahrheit und methode. Bijdragen 34 (2):118-122.
John R. Searle (1990). Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program? Scientific American 262 (1):26-31.
Paul M. Churchland & Patricia S. Churchland (1990). Could a Machine Think? Scientific American 262 (1):32-37.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William J. Rapaport (1993). Because Mere Calculating Isn't Thinking: Comments on Hauser's Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing?. Minds and Machines 3 (1):11-20.
Larry Hauser (1993). Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing? Minds and Machines 3 (1):3-10.
John Haugeland (1985). Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mattia Riccardi (2010). Nietzsche's Critique of Kant's Thing in Itself. Nietzsche-Studien 39 (1):333-351.
David J. Cole (1991). Artificial Intelligence and Personal Identity. Synthese 88 (September):399-417.
Mark Balaguer (1998). Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
Lloyd P. Gerson (2005). What is Platonism? Journal of the History of Philosophy 43 (3):253-276.
Michael Kary & Martin Mahner (2002). How Would You Know If You Synthesized a Thinking Thing? Minds and Machines 12 (1):61-86.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #180,385 of 1,725,624 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #211,030 of 1,725,624 )
How can I increase my downloads?