Could Computers Think? (Discuss in relation to Turing and Searle)
In this essay I will attempt to evaluate the claim that computers are able to think. In order to so, the
terms ‘computers’ and ‘thinking’ need to be clarified. Alan Turing in Computing Machinery And
Intelligence specified computers to be digital which had the following qualities: 1) a store of
information for calculations and rules the computer must follow, 2) an Executive unit which carries
out the individual operations and 3) a control which ensures that instructions are performed in
accordance with the rules and in the correct order. Meanwhile, in clarifying what computers John
Searle claimed that were incapable of thinking, he made the distinction between strong and weak
artificial intelligence (AI). Searle objects the strong AI hypothesis stating that an appropriately
programmed computer can understand and have cognitive states. It can be assumed that the strong
AI Searle considers as a computer is fairly synonymous to the digital computers Alan describes so
that a direct comparison between their arguments can be made.
The main uncertainty I will address is how the term ‘thinking’ is conceptualised by both Turing and
Searle and which interpretation is seen to be more sound. Firstly, I will go through the main line of
reasoning in Computing Machinery And Intelligence that seeks to test computer intelligence – The
Turing Test. Specifically, I will argue that testing if a computer is able to be mistaken as a human
does not necessarily determine if a computer is able to think.
Humanity’s innate ability to think cannot be wholly represented through communication; clear
arguments can be made as to why a computer mistaken to be human, while able to imitate human
conversation, does not demonstrate a clear capacity to think. Human consciousness remains a highly
abstract and in-comprehensive field of study, with the thinking associated with communication
remaining a large unknown. A system’s ability to imitate human language does not indicate a level of
thinking that can be associated with being human, or even presenting itself as human. While within
the Turing Test, if the computer was accurately able to imitate human language in a more convincing
manner than an actual person, it can be seen that this would indicate greater than just an ability to
think. With no AI system having passed this test to date, despite higher level artificial intelligences
than ever found before, the sole ability to think can be shown to be less than what it means to be
passable as human.
Searle also compares the human mind with a computer’s to determine if it is able to think. His
argument can be summarised as below:
1. No computer is sufficient to have a mind.
2. The way that brain functions cause minds cannot be solely in virtue of running a computer
program.
3. Anything else that caused minds would have to have causal powers at least equivalent of the
brain.
4. For any machine to have mental states it must have powers equivalent to the human brain.
Searle’s response to the Turing Test states that a digital computer does not resemble a mind
because it is being run by a program, which is only syntactical, whereas minds have both syntax and
semantical content. Syntax refers to the form or structure of a code or sentence whereas semantics
refers to the meanings of those codes and sentences (An Analysis Of Can Computers Think By John
Searle, n.d.). Therefore, even though a digital computer may have a complex series of 0s and 1s
which create images or words on a screen, the digital computer does not understand what those 0s
and 1s stand for or mean which means they are unable to think
Now I will talk about Searle and how he understands thinking to have to consist of understanding.
He specifically says that consciousness, intentionality and understanding are the necessary criteria
that a computer would need to be able to think however computers cannot fulfil these criteria given
that they are not biological machinery like humans. I will be looking at if understanding and
consciousness is necessary for a computer to be considered as a thinking thing. A possible argument
that could be made is that understanding has a scale. However, regardless of where the level of
understanding may lie, thinking is a seperate cognition, that I understand to be less criteria. So if the
question was whether a computer could understand things then the Chinese room argument would
be quite compelling. However, if the question is just if a computer can think then the logical answer
that I see is yes given that a computer is able to process a multitude of inputs and put together a
fairly coherent output which is what I consider thinking to consist of on the basis of functionalism.
Although it may seem like a crude oversimplification of the question at hand, if understanding and
thinking are not mutually exclusive, then computers which are able to do a wide range of cognitions
are certainly able to think. Furthermore, perception is also not required to think even though us
humans perceive external stimuli which our brain processes rather in a programmable manner from
our inner biological workings.
Another question that comes to mind is if the question requires computers to be able to think
independently and thus think for themselves.
In conclusion, determining whether something is able to think should not be dependent on if it can
imitate the human and that understanding is not a necessary criteria for thinking. Provided my
arguments and understanding of thinking, I believe that computers are able to think but not for
themselves.
Word Count: 930