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

Chinese Room Argument as a Response to the Behaviourist's Claim that Computers Can Think - Research Paper Example Consequently, the behaviorists extend this theory to the functioning of computers suggesting that computers can think if they are programmed in a certain way, in which the input/output behavior of a computer is connected to its mental status. However, the Chinese Room argument does not agree with the behaviorist’s 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 have mental states because they are incapable 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 experiment involving a computer input, output activities of a programmed computer whereby a person who does not speak Chinese completely somehow manages to manipulate Chinese symbols and produce right responses (Mart in 178). In this argument, Searle points out a discussion about cognitive science and artificial intelligence. He argues that artificial intelligence is without any doubt artificial. Therefore, the big question here is, are computers intelligent? I agree with Searle’s 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.