Paste your essay in here…Mind and Consciousness Paper
Apple is announcing that the “iPerson” is coming out soon. Among its feature the most interesting being that it is said to have the capability to experience qualia and experience your qualia. Though Apple claims that the “iPerson” can perform these functions, they also claim that that their creation is not biological.
Apple’s claims that the new “iPerson” can experience these seemingly groundbreaking experiences, although revolutionary as it sounds, is impossible in my opinion and the opinions of a few other noteworthy philosophers. The reason that the “iPerson” will is unable to experience qualia or your qualia is because it does not have a mind. Without a mind the “iPerson” can not form quales such as sight, touch, and taste. A program even advanced as Apple claims it to be does not have the capability to create a mind simply off of a program. Although the “iPerson” is advertised as running a non biological but extremely advanced program, its impossible to experience qualia without a biological mind. It is able to deduce information and process it by its programming and Apple claims that it is a very advanced programming but also claims that the “iPerson” is not biological. This creates an issue according to the beliefs of a famous philosopher’s named Frank Jackson and John Searle.
Frank Jackson argues against Physicalism. Qualia can be defined as subject qualities of experience, individuals quaila is subjective to that person. Examples of quail include sensations of touch, taste, and smell. Qualia is not able to be measured by others, it is subjective to the person who is experiencing it. Which the “iPerson” would not be able to feel on their own, let alone feel your qualia. Jackson’s argument for this can be presented in his knowledge argument that is titled “Mary’s Room”. Mary is a girl who has been locked in a closet for years and does not know color but knows every single fact that there is to know. Mary is extremely intelligent but does not understand how to view color. After Mary is released into the world she decides gonna career in the color field and has great success, but still is unable to view color. A physicalist would argue that she knows everything there is to know. But Jacksons argument although she is thriving in the color field, she still does not know what color looks like. Therefore making physicalism false.
Jackson’s example of Marys room proves that the “iPerson” can not experience quaila. Mary is a human and she was raised in a black and white room never seeing color. She was taught every fact that there is to know making her a genius, much like you can program a computer to learn facts. The problem with Mary was that all though she was taught so much information about the physical world and knew virtually everything, she was never introduced to color until she was let or saw a television that contained color. She had no visual aid to connect what color looks like. Jackson stated that “It seems however, that Mary does not know all there is to know” (292). Apple announced that the “iPerson” would be able to experience quaila. But if Mary who is in fact a real human being, was not able to understand color because she had never seen it before, how should a “advanced” computer be capable of doing so. The “iPerson” is run off of a program. The Human mind can take in information through the eye and the brain processes it and determines what color you are looking at. That is only true if the mind initially has a recollection of what that color looks like and a name to associate it with. If the Human mind can not determine a color because it is not familiar with it, how should a computer be able to do so?This program is advanced it is still unable to experience quaila because all of its thoughts and experiences are artificial. The “iPerson” will not be able to see color because its not a person and no programming can great the quale of visual experience.
Furthermore expanding on Apple’s creation, they claim the the “iPerson” is also capable of experiencing “your” qualia. This claim is false as well due to the fact that each individuals qualia is subjective to that person. For example the way in which I perceive the color blue could be vastly different compared to the way that another being views the color. This could be the case for a multiple different reasons such as color blindness or simply having different experiences with the color. For Apple to say that the “iPerson” is able to experience your own individual qualia would be like saying that another human could experience my quaila which would be false as well because those experiences are subjective.
John Searle is another philosopher who would agree that Apples claims that their new creation is capable of experiencing is qualia and your qualia is not possible. Searle’s argument can be found in his thought experiment that was called “The Chinese Room”. This experiment was created to test his a theory that computers with strong AI have minds and the ability to think. The Chinese Room experiment starts out with a man in a room, he is given a script of Chinese writing but has no idea what it means. Following the first script the man is given another set of writing written in Chinese but this time it comes with a set of rules in English. The man in the room can now vaguely distinguish the writing due to the help of the English he was given. Lastly he is given a third set that he can now link this third set to the first and second set to give symbols back. By the end of this he got so good at using these symbols that he was now fully answering questions in Chinese that are identical to that of a fluent speaker. But do you actually know the language of Chinese? The answer is no. This experiment highlights Searle’s theory that computers such as the “iPerson” can not think for themselves. Searle states that “But in the Chinese case, unlike the English case, I produce the answers by manipulating uninterpreted formal symbols. As far as the Chinese are concerned, I simply b have like a computer” (309). Though a computer could be able to use a rulebook as a computer could not do follow this if it were not in its programming. Without the proper programming it would not be possible for a computer to translate Chinese because it is not able to think for itself. The programming isn what does the thinking.
John Searle would say that for Apple to say that the “iPerson” is capable of experiencing quaila and your qualia is not possible. Searle believes that a commuters knowledge is solely based off of the program that the computer is running. Saying that the “iPerson” is capable of experiencing human quales goes against Searle’s theory because he claims that these computers can not think or create experiences of their own because they do not have minds of their own. Their minds are created and expanded based of off the information that is contained in the program that they are running. The computer is not able to see, hear, or feel for itself. Though strong AI can do advanced things, computers are not at that point yet according to Searle’s theory. The “iPerson” would be unable to create its own experiences of qualia or yours as well.
The idea that the “iPerson” would be able to experience qualia and our qualia is impossible because of the nature of our minds. Our minds are very complex and can not be imitated by a computer not matter how advanced the program it is running is. The examples that Jackson and Searle use both accurately depict how the mind can not simply be programmed into the inside of a computer. The nature of our minds from the day we are born gives us the ability to learn, make memories, and make experiences. Though, an advanced computer can be taught facts and knowledge, no amount of programming can give a computer the ability to make quales on their lonesome.
Many philosophers do not believe that Apple’s creation would be able to experience quill like its advertised. One philosopher who would agree is a famous philosopher named Alan Turing. Alan Turing is most famous for The Turing test. In The Turing Test, Alan Turing has participants A, B, and C. C is there to question participants A and B who are in a room together. C is supposed to be asking questions to A and B to see what gender they are. Meanwhile A and B are both trying to convince C that they are both females regardless of their gender. Turing the takes B out of the room and replaces the person with a computer. The new job of A and B is to convince C that they are human. If C can not tell which A or B is the real human than the computer passes the test. This challenges Searle, Jackson, and I’s opinion because if the computer can generate responses on the spot that can compete with a humans responses than that would mean in Turing’s opinion that the computer can think and has some sort of mind. This strongly objects that the “iPerson” does not have the capability to experience qualia and our qualia. If a computer has a mind than it has the ability to create qualia without it being programmed.
My response to Alan Turing’s view that clashes with these other philosophers and my own has to do with AI and human intelligence. This test requires that you have a computer and human competing to prove that they are human. One large grey area that can be drawn from the test is human error. Although the machine may be able to make very smart and conscious decisions on their responses, will these computers make errors that actual humans could or might make during the testing period. After all “AI” is made to be intelligent, sometimes humans are not intelligent all the time and make mistakes or even purposely do unintelligent things such as lying or making a typo. A participant with responses that are perfect every single time could raise a red flag. Humans are far from perfect, it's just how our minds are made. If a computer can imitate that quality in humans than it does not have a mind at all. It is just a very intelligent program. Another problem with Turing’s test and his view is will the computer be able to compile new facts and responses that are not already programmed in the “mind” of the computer. If the computer is not able to create new responses and “think” outside the box than it does not have much of a mind at all, it is just a program.
Apple’s claim that their creation of the “iPerson”, is a very interesting concept but it just is not feasible. To say that a computer or robot can create and experience qualia or even your qualia is not possible due to the fact that these creations can not have minds. Without possessing a biological mind as humans do, these computers do not have the capability to have these experiences not matter how advanced the program it is currently running. I’m not saying that this is not something that could not happen in the future with the technology. But currently the nature of our minds are far too complex for any computer to compete with the quill of them without having our biological make up.