MInd and Belief in Computers
This chapter seemed to be equally about intentionality as it was computers. The author was trying to make a distinction in whether or not computerds could have intentionality or beliefs. this seems like an idea that is hard to get a grip on. Computers would have to have a program that would store information and apply it to any output before it released any reaction. So if a computer were able to hold a conversation, it would have to have some kind of data to base it's expressions on or it would be a shallow meaningless talk. My on intentionality, is that more is needed than just a storage of possible responses for a reply, there needs to be substance to the conversation, emotion, behavior and gestures. It seems to be a far reach to see a machine duplicate the complexities of the human brain. I see the connection of water running downhill and computers simulating the brain. Water has no intentionality though does it? Isn't it just going where gravity is pulling it? It is not using some kind of reasoning to direct it's passage. Aren't computers in the same boat? They are only performing the programs that we are asking them to do. They do not choose what direction of how to handle a situation. Agree or no?
Graham, MInd and Belief in Computers
Class discussion