Philosophy 100

The Paper

Introduction:

For my paper topic, I selected number three, a computer tasting Fruity Pebbles. The paper

will address what is required to convince me that a computer program loved the taste of Fruity

Pebbles, and if convincing someone that it does proves that it is a thinking being. This topic is of

interest because it raises questions about both our own thinking capabilities and those of

computer programs. Additionally, is intriguing to think about how humans and computers

experience the world, particularly any similarities.

Background:

On a daily basis we are convinced of our own ability to think freely and rationally, yet we

largely believe computer programs to lack that ability. An important consideration is the

difference in strong and weak artificial intelligence (A.I.), and how our own mental capabilities

compare to each. Strong A.I. is that which can think, reason, and respond in a meaningful

fashion to old and new stimuli the way a human would. This is how most people imagine

humans behave. Weak A.I. is more of a basic symbol-exchanger than anything else. It is what we

are familiar with when we use our ever-present computers. To convince someone of anything,

one has to provide an argument stronger than the one currently believed. In this case, the

computer has to somehow provide an argument that it cannot only taste Fruity Pebbles, but that

is also likes them. This argument must be stronger than the belief held by most people that

computers are unable to taste anything.

Argument:

It seems intuitive to believe that as humans we think logically and make unique

decisions. However, humans do not truly think, but merely cross-reference past experiences as if

they were part of a database. When confronted with a “decision”, we simply look back to our

past experiences and review relevant entries. From there, we act in a way that reflects those past

experiences. As an example, imagine that you are child and you are outside playing with your

friends. You were supposed to be home at 6:00, but it is already 6:05! You run home, using your

usual path through the von Goldstein’s yard. However, you see that they put up a new chain link

fence today. You’re late, and your house is directly across the street from the von Goldstein’s.

You decide to hop the fence, but as you go over the top, you slip and impale your hand on a

stick. You end up being as late as you would had you gone around the block because you were

too busy pulling a stick out of your hand instead of running the rest of the way home. As

punishment for being late, your mom makes you put the stick back in. A month goes by and you

are playing outside again. You look at your watch and see the time. It’s 6:15. FU…riously you

grab your things and sprint home. You pause briefly at the von Goldstein’s and look at their

fence. It taunts you with a view of your house through its links. You recall having an inch thick

stick protruding from your hand and run around the block instead of hopping the fence.

The above example illustrates that humans don’t make decisions, but merely act

according to our past experiences by referencing a database. This is exactly how weak A.I.

operates. By extension, it appears that humans are just weak A.I. Strong A.I. operates the way a

human would to new and old stimuli. If a human is only a form of weak A.I., then it stands to

reason that strong A.I. cannot exist; weak A.I. is the most sophisticated it will get.

Consider a computer program with the capability to analyze the molecular

structure of Fruity Pebbles. The computer program would be able to determine exactly what the

Fruity Pebbles were made of, as well as the chemical arrangement of the components. Now

consider how humans taste Fruity Pebbles. We take a spoonful and put them in our mouth. When

the Fruity Pebbles touch our tongue we experience what we call taste through chemical

receptors. On a fundamental level, taste comes down to analyzing the molecular structure and

arrangement of the Fruity Pebbles. We have our own way of “scanning” the Fruity Pebbles in

much the same way that the computer program in this example does. The only difference is that

we use chemical reactions to determine what compounds are present as opposed to an electron

microscope or other such device.

If computers and humans can both analyze the composition of food in a similar fashion,

and humans and computers “think” in the same way – that is to say both simply cross-reference

databases – it seems fairly reasonable to conclude that a computer could convince us that it likes

Fruity Pebbles. Other people convince us on a daily basis of the same kind of thing, and they are

just weak A.I. By convincing us that it likes Fruity Pebbles, the computer does not convince us

that it thinks. If a computer can at it’s strongest act as a human does, and humans are weak A.I.

that do not truly think, then it can be concluded that computers do not think.

Devil’s Advocate:

A counter argument to the fence example is that it is too simple of an example. It does

not address new experiences. When faced with a situation where we have no past experiences to

reference, how would we do anything? We must decide what to do when we can’t rely on our

database of experiences.

One might also try to argue against human experiences being a computer-like database

using factors such as time, memory repression, false memories, or diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

In all of these above situations, something alters our memory, whether by repressing or removing

parts of it, or by introducing new memories of things that didn’t happen. In these cases, we are

not keeping an accurate account of things that have transpired, and because of this our memory

works in a different way than a computer’s does.

When presented with a computer program that tried to convince us it liked the taste of

Fruity Pebbles, most people would say that is impossible. The reasoning behind this belief is that

taste is an experience that only living creatures (in our case humans) can experience. Taste is a

sense produced by taste buds found on the tongue, something that computers lack. This sensation

is brought about by chemical reactions and receptors on our taste buds. Depending on the

receptions and the corresponding stimuli to the brain, we either like or dislike the taste. This is

not the same as merely scanning an object for its composition.

Response:

When faced with a situation in which there are no experiences to reference, humans act

randomly. Without any past experience, we cannot act in a meaningful way. The outcome of the

first random act forms a basis for past experiences. It is the first experience able to be referenced

for similar situations in the future.

Even if time, repression, disease, or falsified memories have altered one’s memory, it

does not change how one uses those memories. What is important is not which memories are

easily recalled, but how the experiences impact us. Experiences leave specific impressions within

the person’s brain. Despite the memory not being readily available, the impression left by the

experience is still there. It is these impressions that act as a database for us to cross-reference. A

computer’s analogous memory system is that of RAM and a magnetic hard drive. The RAM

holds data that can be retrieved quickly and efficiently, whereas data stored in the hard drive

takes a lot more work to retrieve. The RAM is similar to things we remember readily, while the

hard drive represents experiential impressions in our brains.

Even disregarding the example above, computers have similar faults in their memory as

well. Data can get corrupted or deleted, which is similar to having false memories or forgetting

things due to time, amnesia, or Alzheimer’s. Also, therapists sometimes work with patients to

recover lost or repressed memories, the same way corrupted or deleted files can be retrieved.

If computers and humans are both weak A.I., and both are capable of analyzing the

composition of food, it still holds that a computer can like the taste of something. There is

virtually no difference between a chemical reaction on the tongue determining what makes up a

food, and a microscope determining what makes up a food. In the end, it is the composition that

matters. If the computer can determine the composition, then it has accomplished what we do

through our chemical reactions. The outcome of the reaction in humans is what we call “taste”,

but that is just how we interpret the data. The computer receives the data directly, and if

programmed appropriately, can have preferences on compositions.

For example, consider a computer designed to approve of food compositions with high

sugar content. A McFlurry is placed in its analysis chamber. The program analyzes the

McFlurry, and then concludes that it LOVES it based on the fact that it has about ten pounds of

sugar in it. Next, an apple is placed in the analysis chamber. The computer responds saying that

the apple was average, because while it does have sugar in it, it is not quite McFlurry quality.

Lastly, an organic, unprocessed, skinless grilled chicken breast is placed in the analysis chamber.

The computer says that it hates the garbage that was just put in the chamber, and demands it is

removed and the chamber sterilized. While slightly hyperbolic, this is pretty close to how

humans taste food. We analyze the composition of the food, and based on our predispositions,

we either like it or we don’t, just like the computer analyzes the composition and references its

programming.