Last Update: 5 April 2010
Note: or material is highlighted
For this position paper, I would like you to evaluate the following hypothetical debate.
Con: What do you mean by "being cognitive"?
Pro: I mean that it:
Con: Do you think they will succeed?
Pro: I'm optimistic: I think that a computer running a suitable AI program (or maybe a suite of programs) will eventually behave in all these ways.
Con: But that means that you think that such an AI-programmed computer will be cognitive?
Con: But that's crazy! Computers and computer programs are purely syntactic!
Pro: Now it's my turn to ask for clarification: What do you mean by "syntactic"?
Con: I mean that all a computer can do is to manipulate the symbols of a formal symbol system.
Pro: So what's the problem?
Con: The problem is that cognition is semantic! That is, it involves the semantic interpretation of those symbols.
Pro: Well, I'm not so sure about that. But suppose you're right. What then?
Con: Well, syntax does not suffice for semantics. So, no computer executing a purely syntactic computer program can exhibit semantic cognition, even if it behaves in all relevant ways as if it were cognitive.
Then analyze each argument.
E.g., Con's first statement is a question—it is not a premise or
conclusion of anyone's argument—
and Pro's second statment needs to be reformulated as something like "Something is cognitive means that it…".
(Of course, you might want to do option #1 for your own use before doing
They are not mutually inconsistent :-)
If your document is more than 1 page long, please staple the pages together and make sure that your name is on all pages!
|Position Paper #5||YOUR NAME|
|DATE DUE||CSE 484 (or 584) (or PHI 584)|
|DUE AT THE BEGINNING OF LECTURE, MONDAY, APRIL 12|