Chinese Room Argument as a Response to the Behaviourist's Claim that Research Paper

Chinese Room Argument as a chemical reaction to the Behaviourists Claim that Computers Can Think - Research Paper ExampleConsequently, the behaviorists extend this theory to the functioning of computers suggesting that computers trick think if they are programmed in a certain way, in which the input/output behavior of a computer is connected to its psychogenic status. However, the Chinese Room debate does not agree with the behaviorists claim, which illustrates that thinking is far from a mere production of an output from a given stimulus (Martin 175). Therefore, in support of the Chinese Room argument, I will argue that computers do not induct mental states because they are incompetent of thinking, thus, are not intelligent as a human. The Chinese Room argument is one of the examples that present premises to disagree with the notion that computers have a mental state. This argument uses an experimentation involving a computer input, output activities of a programmed computer wh ereby a person who does not speak Chinese completely somehow manages to manipulate Chinese symbols and produce right responses (Martin 178). In this argument, Searle points out a give-and-take about cognitive science and artificial intelligence. He argues that artificial intelligence is without any doubt artificial. Therefore, the volumed question here is, are computers intelligent? I agree with Searles argument that there is no true intelligence for computers. Unlike beings with mental state, computers do understand language, syntax they are just incapable of understanding (semantics) and emotion. This is because these activities require consciousness lacking in computers. In addition, for computers to be intelligent it would mean that they have beliefs and other mental states like fear, and hope among other emotions. However, this is not true for computers and machines in general.