Can an Artificial Brain Know

From the IB cirlce of knowledge several approaches can be taken to analyze this dilemma. From the area of the circle concerning logic and reason the machine appears to be appropriately labeled as having knowledge. A machine is founded on several programs, which in turn are all based on principles of a logical and ordered language protocol. In comparison with humans, which do know, it is apparent that similar logical patterns are followed. When an individual becomes dirty and needs to be cleansed, it is decided that he must bathe. This is a subtle form of logic. A machine can follow this same exact logic. There are modern stove’s which have the ability to automatically cleanse themsleves when it is deemed necessary, without any external input. In this manner, it appears that the logic of machines is exact to that of something which, in fact, does know. However, it can be interpreted that a machine must work in agreement only with these programmed rules of logic. Without a system of logical input initially programmed by the creator, the computer would have no basis in its process of knowing. This arises the problem of knowledge introduced earlier, “Is the logic of the machine its own logic?”

In reference to emotion, different aspects within the limit of machine’s ability to know are evident. A major difference between human emotion and machine emotion is the presence of a consciousness. A consciousness is not something that can be currently programmed into a machine, thus putting the machine at a disadvantage in its ability to perceive knowledge, and make decisions in comparison to that of a human, who possesses a conscious which helps direct specific decisions. A conscious is what separates actual knowledge from artificial intelligence. Machines contain artificial intelligence, but lack the ability to assess emotions and eventually choose the decision which correctly associates the decision with the emotions at hand. In this manner, a fault within a machine’s ability to know becomes apparent. However, this idea of machines not possessing emotions is strictly applicable to our current understanding machines. In the future, possibly after several technological paradigm shifts, it may be possible to create a computer which exactly imitates the human brain. In this aspect, emotions could possibly be present, revoking the commonly held belief that machines are emotionless.

One counter example which arises in assessing a machine’s ability to know is that of an experiment designed by John Searle. It has been said that, “John Searle’s thought experiment and associated derivation is one of the best known and widely credited counter to claims of artificial intelligence and the computers ability to know.” In this experiment, the argument centers on an experiment in which a man who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters. To those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese, however this is not true. The man is merely manipuilating information, rather then understanding, or knowing what he is writing. Searle’s argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding or knowing language.

In Conclusion, to say that a machine has the ability to know, just as we humans do, would be an exaggeration. However, to say that machines have no ability to contain knowledge or know, would be disregarding the ability of modern machines and their current ability. It is obvious that much of this question relies on the initial definition of knowledge. However, by using Plato’s universally accepted definition, a more practical answer would follow. It has been acknowledged that many problems of knowledge hinder one’s ability to classify a machine potential to know. Currently it would appear that a machine does not fit the majority of needed criterion, i.e. the absence of emotions, lack of consciousness, and inability to believe. But there is case which can be made, as machines do follow a system of logic and reason, which in association with the IB circle of knowledge, is an adequate way of knowing. Henceforth, the progress made within creating machines and computers will only escalate, just as Kuhn stated. Nevertheless, it might just take another paradigm shift within the field of technology for it to be a justified, true belief that machines can, in fact, know.