Skip to main content
Log in

The Very Idea of Computer Self-Knowledge and Self-Deception

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Do computers have beliefs? I argue that anyone who answers in the affirmative holds a view that is incompatible with what I shall call the commonsense approach to the propositional attitudes. My claims shall be two. First,the commonsense view places important constraints on what can be acknowledged as a case of having a belief. Second, computers – at least those for which having a belief would be conceived as having a sentence in a belief box – fail to satisfy some of these constraints. This second claim can best be brought out in the context of an examination of the idea of computer self-knowledge and self-deception, but the conclusion is perfectly general: the idea that computers are believers, like the idea that computers could have self-knowledge or be self-deceived, is incompatible with the commonsense view. The significance of the argument lies in the choice it forces on us: whether to revise our notion of belief so as to accommodate the claim that computers are believers, or to give up on that claim so as to preserve our pretheoretic notion of the attitudes. We cannot have it both ways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bilgrami (1990), ‘Dummett, Realism, and Other Minds’, unpublished manuscript.

  • Bringsjord (1992), What Robots Can and Can't Be, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson (1970), ‘Mental Events’, in Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson (1974), ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’, in Essays on Truth and Interpretation, Oxford: OUP, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson (1984), ‘First Person Authority’, Dialectica, 38.

  • Davidson (1987), ‘Knowing One's Own Mind’, Presidential Address to the American Philosophical Association, 60.

  • Dennett (1978), Brainstorms, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett (1987), The Intentional Stance, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett (1990) ‘Brain Writing and Mind Reading’, in Rosenthal ed., The Nature of Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy (1973), ‘Reference, Meaning, and Belief’, Journal of Philosophy, 70.

  • Putnam (1960), ‘Minds and Machines’, in Mind Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers Volume II, Cambridge: CUP, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam (1967), ‘The Nature of Mental States’, in Mind Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers Volume II, Cambridge: CUP, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam (1967b), ‘The Mental Life of Some Machines’, in Mind Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers Volume II, Cambridge: CUP, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn (1984), Computation and Cognition, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goldberg, S.C. The Very Idea of Computer Self-Knowledge and Self-Deception. Minds and Machines 7, 515–529 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008210414600

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008210414600

Navigation