PHILOSOPHIE EN ANGLAIS

Thought Experiment : our brains connected to a computer

Text from Hilary PUTNAM who is a functionalist “Brains in a vat”

Functionalism: orthodox view in the 1960’s /70’s

Computationalist theory of minds which refer to the Turing hypothesis and the Turing machine
in 1936 Turing imagined the idealized model of an intelligent machine (input transformed into
logical symbols then the machine manipulates this abstract logical symbols according to mechanical
rules called algorithms in order to give a particular answer, an appropriate output.
This machine is supposed to do all the mental tasks, any task thanks to an infinite tape (ideal
computer) in a near future we can imagine that when our computers will be sophisticated and
powerful, when they’ll have improve their abilities they’ll be able to achieve all our mental tasks
like mathematical tasks (calculating all Pi’s decimals) he also imagined logical reasoning and we
could add linguistic comprehension, perception, gestures if this computer is embedded in a robot
and so for it.

→ Are there intelligent machines ? Does it exists ? To emulate all what we do ?

→ Can we consider that our minds think like machines with no differences ? La Mettrie

If your answer is yes to these questions, you are a real functionalist/Strong AI view.
Weak AI consider that they are a good model to consider, to know better our mind but for strong AI
it’s not just a model but a reality: they are intelligent machines.

Functionalism: holds that our mental life can be explained in terms of causal or functional relations.
A causal relation between the sensory input and the mental state then a causal situation btw the
mental state and the external output.

How do I characterize pain ? Forget whet I feel (functionalists don’t want introspection) let imagine
a physical injury, this injury produces the mental state of pain; then that I should do something to
avoid this pain or to heal and then they produce something like a grimace, which is the external
output (for instance crying, scream).

Behaviorists forgot the black box, the internal mental state whereas the functionalists did open it.
This is a naturalistic framework it means that this functionalist philosophy of minds tries to imitate
to be as efficient as Nature Sciences such as Physics f.i..In the 20th everyone tried to imitate Nature
Scientists.

Descartes: Mind is not the brain, it has to be sharply distinguished from it, they are two different
entities. This is the Metaphysical position in Philosophy.

Everybody wants to avoid the Cartesian Threat since functionalism. Nobody wants to be accused to
be a metaphysical Cartesian.

One could say that Functionalist has a part of dualism. Putnam’s functionalism has a little family
resemblance with Descartes’ dualism. He always holds that there is mental states in our brains, in
our skulls, an internal distinct mental life. Exactly like Descartes, there are causal relations between
internal states and the external events.
Important thesis in Putnam’s philosophy “Multiple Realizabilty Thesis” the idea that the same
mental state can be implemented in various physical bases. (in a natural brain (meat brain) or in a
silicon circuit). When he set out this thesis he refers to pain in reptiles humans birds, to figure out if
they are sentient.

Functionalism is a weak dualism, a dualism in a naturalistic framework not a strong metaphysical

Cartesian dualism. A dualism that can be explain by natural sciences. Functionalism is located
halfway between a Cartesian metaphysical dualism and a materialistic reductionist view like f.i. the
Mind-Brain Identity Theory (Australian theory from the sixties holding that our minds are brains
and mental states are physical states with no differences).

In order to assess this functionalist view, shall we consider that there is no difference between
human brains and machines ? Is it a substantial phi position ? We now live among very intelligent
machines, we now may have good means to assess this Turing challenge to answer his question,
maybe we are near to think that there are no differences.

Real Humans (series) which place do we want to give them in our lives ?
In what is the difference between humans and robots ?
The Chinese Room Argument invented by John Searl : somebody gives you under the door a sheet
with Chinese questions, you don’t know any words in Chinese but you’ve an instruction handbook
in order to answer, to give the appropriate answers and you do and it works. People outside thinks
you are a Chinese. You have a computer with rules you just apply and it works. The computer
allows you to pass the Turing Test = Is there a difference btw you and a real Chinese ? => no this is
the same. Yo do that mechanically, like a machine, just with a book. You apply algorithms.
Conclusion: This experiment tells us that you can be successful to the task to the Turing Test but
with no understanding of it. Exactly like a computer, the difference between humans and computers
is here: you know that you don’t understand whereas computers don’t understand anything that they
do.

Doing something mechanically/ doing something with your understanding of it.

You were successful but you understand that you don’t understood nothing. Conscience
intentionnelle.