Eventually, Lana could use names, identify unnamed objects and request unnamed and non-present objects. She could identify objects by name and color, and performed basic math skills using “Froot Loops” cereal pieces. Based on Lana’s improvement, the creators and scientists behind this project concluded that, “cognitive prerequisites of language are not uniquely human,” although chimpanzees lack “sufficient intelligence to formulate and concatenate, rapidly and spontaneously, unlimited arbitrary symbols.” Their assertion that the “ability to separate events from representation is the fundamental element of language” is the untested assumption and conclusion of the Lana project (Dolan). Many critics of the experiments believe that the projects were not as conclusive as was portrayed. One could argue that Koko, Washoe and Lana were exceptionally intelligent primates and admittedly, maybe not all primates would have the same learning abilities as them.
Argument seven which is “Argument from Continuity in the Nervous System” compares a machine to a Homo Sapiens nervous system. A human nervous system consists of neurons that transmits information through electrical impulses. The nervous system is not a discrete state machine, but a tiny error can cause a huge difference in the information being sent out by the neurons just like how it works in a machine. Turing compares a discrete-state machine like a digital computer to a differential analyzer stating that a computer cannot predict what answers will a differential analyzer could give to a problem. Whereas, a human brain can make such predictions.
From the ancient Greece to France, and finally to American and Hollywood, the question of perception and reality has been a perplexing problem for many philosophers. American philosopher Hilary Putnam generated a thought intriguing experiment on this question, and his experiment became a basis for the movie The Matrix. Basically, he proposed an idea about the situation where one’s sensory information can be deceptive. For example, every single part of human sensory system including the brain and nerve system is transferred to a vat to connect to the computer. If the sensory information is provided through the computer data, and if the data is directly transmitted to the brain, then the brain will not be able to distinguish the computer data
In Skepticism and Content Externalism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Brueckner, summarizes an Hilary Putnam’s argument about “brains in a vat.” Putnam was an American Philosopher and scientist. “Brains in a vat” was an experiment that was taken to help scientist further expand on knowledge. It was a new and updated version of Rene Descartes’ Evil Demon experiment. In the Evil Demon experiment, he believed there was a demon whose purpose was to mislead us by creating illusions for our bodies and our world. He felt that a demon was a person consciousness .Descartes believed, “If I think, therefore I am”.
If a non english speaker or a person who is not familiar with idioms, he or she might not understand the meaning of this idiom which means reveal the information or secret. Furthermore, in a cognitive science research shows that our brains are wired to generate to understand metaphorical statement before we even speak. According to the “father” of metaphor, George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley retired professor, he stated, metaphor uses source domain which is our daily directly experience to help us understand a more abstract new concept which is the target domain, something that we cannot hear , see, touch etc. Even in different language like Chinese and Hungarian, emotion is also being associated with spatial orientation. Lastly, at the Q & A section, Professor Tennie Matlock said, something when there’s too many metaphors in one sentence it makes it
Interrelated with the construct equivalence and linguistic equivalence, metric equivalence can ranges from the equally understanding the meaning of the test items to the similar difficulty of the items to all participants (Buil, Chernatony, & Martinez, 2012). For instance, if one item in an intelligence test ask participants to choose the name of an American president from the following names: Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain, LeBron James, and Thomas Jefferson, it would be more difficulty for Chinese participants who have no knowledge about American history than American participants. It is clear from this example that unless the test instruments can be equally understood and each item has similar difficulty to all participants, meaningful comparisons among different cultures cannot be
To further complicate Johnson's perception, Sacks states "Yet the brain remains capable of making radical shifts in response to sensory deprivation"(Sacks,331). Making radical shifts gives us an indication that the brain could be termed as a pacemaker within us, as it controls what we do. Furthermore, genes and the brain have quite similar functions to carry out, which is giving out instructions to us, so in that regard both could be termed as pacemakers. The term pacemaker is indeed a very complex term and not as simple as it
Searle has two interesting arguments for materialism. The first is that Mental phenomena are all caused by processes going on in the brain, and that pain and mental things are just features of the brain. Knowing the background of this knowledge leads to Searle’s idea of the “Chinese room” argument. This argument aims to show people that computers cannot think. The point of this
The military is what can make Mandarin Chinese a viable threat to the English language. How did English become so big in the first place? By taking over countries. Forcing them to speak it. If they could do something similar with the Chinese military, that is most likely the only way for them to actually make Mandarin Chinese a viable threat against the English language.
And the display of 'artificial intelligence' by a computer does not prove its possession of fundamental beliefs or of self-consciousness. Indeed, as Bertrand Russell argued, we cannot prove that our fellow humans have minds like ourselves. We are bound to believe it without proof. But there is no reason to believe the same about computers. (See the following note on 'Credos').