Paper Reading #0 On Computers

Reference Information:
Aristotle, On Plants, The Revised Oxford Translation, Edited by Jonathan Barnes, Volume Two
Minds, Brains, and Programs by John R. Searle
Chinese Room, Wikipedia

Author Bios:
Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher well known for his clear, systematic approach toward explaining many of the philosophical and scientific questions that have plagued us from his time to ours.  He studied under Plato for many years in Athens, then founded his own school and became a teacher.  He taught for 12 years until his death.
John R. Searle was born in Denver, Colorado and studied at the universities of Wisconsin and Oxford. He became a professor at the University of California in 1959 and continues to work there today as a professor of philosophy.  Many of his best-known works, including Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Minds, Brains, and Science, and The Mystery of Consciousness deal with understanding and defining the human mind and consciousness.  He has traveled throughout the United States and abroad giving lectures and is the author of 15 books and over 150 articles.


Summary
Hypothesis
In Aristotle's On Plants, the hypothesis is put forward that plants are alive in a manner similar to, though less obvious than, animals.  Namely, that plants experience some level of sensation, desire, and pain in reaction to their needs and surroundings.
Methods
Aristotle did not perform any actual experimentation to test his hypothesis, but rather relied on a logical progression of assertions building upon each other to reach the final conclusion.  These assertions were based largely on extremely in-depth observations.
Results
Aristotle's initial assertions seem to be defended strongly in the beginning of his paper, but as it continued it was less clear when observations were in support of his claims and when they were against them.  There is not a conclusion at the end, but it appears that his reasoning ends in the favor of his hypothesis.
Contents
Aristotle's paper begins with some ideas from other philosophers on the subject claiming that plants can feel joy and sadness, as well as sensation and desire.  The rest paper is largely concerned with putting forth a number of observations regarding plants and exploring their implications.  Although it is clear in the paper that he would tend to agree with the aforementioned philosophers, he is primarily concerned with the most careful examination of what can actually be observed and presents his findings as such.
Discussion
I enjoyed reading both of these articles, and I feel that their points were extremely well-presented and thought out.  I think that Searle did a marvelous job defending his point of view, to the point that it makes any attempt to disagree with him look utterly foolish.  The first time I read the article, it was mostly a skimming of the highlights.  When I felt that I understood the basics of his man-in-the-room idea and had developed several points of contention, I went back and read the article thoroughly.  Every single flaw in his argument that I had identified was neatly lined up and shot down by his explanations.   He clearly delineates what he considers to be the line between a "mind" and a simple program, and goes on to prove his point well within the rest of the bounds and definitions previously established.
As I understand it, Aristotle's paper is primarily intended with getting to the bottom of the issue and he spends most of his time using real-life examples to support his claims.  Even though we know today that a large amount of his writing is completely wrong, I believe that he did have sound methodology for the time.
Having said that, I would put forth my own personal point of view on the matter of computer intelligence and sentience.  While it is difficult to really draw from Aristotle's work, I believe he had one thing right.  We can only know what we can observe and prove.  Everything else is guesswork.  I believe that the lines between a program and a consciousness are more blurred than Searle permits in his article.  Note that I am not disagreeing with his points as they are given within the bounds defined in his work.  I am disagreeing with the bounds themselves and thereby making the points, by extension, irrelevant.  I think that the line which we assert exists between simply following rules and possessing true sentience is only there because we as humans lack the ability to understand the connection between the two.  It follows from this that we will never create something that can "think" like us because we cannot actually understand how we think in the first place.  However, I do not think it would be impossible for such a thing to exist in theory.
Aristotle uses examples of behavior to extend attributes of living creatures to plants.  In a sense, he wasn't entirely wrong because plants do react to their environment on some level.  If I were to follow this logic I might say that I carry out an instruction because I decide, for whatever reason, that I want to do so.  Following that, one might conclude that a machine carries out an instruction because it wants to as well.  However, this particular argument ignores the other possibility: maybe I carry out the instruction because I have no choice or no knowledge of any other option.  By default, we tend to assume that it is actually THIS reason rather than the former that causes machines to follow whatever instruction is given to them.
In actuality this is an entirely correct assumption, given that we control the design and all input to a program in the first place.   And so, frankly, we know that the computer truly does not have any other option.  However, would it be possible for that to ever change?  I believe the answer is yes.  When humans no longer have control over the contents and potential of programs, I think it could be possible for something like sentience to develop.  To be clear, I think that the programs would have to be learning programs with the ability to grow themselves in whatever areas required it.

Introduction Blog #-1

E-mail: almala6@gmail.com
Class: 5th year Senior

Why are you taking this class?
I am taking this class primarily to satisfy one of my area elective requirements, but also because I think that it will have real application for me in the future.  I have observed a growing trend toward integrating our new technologies seamlessly into daily life, and this goal is utterly dependent upon successful HCI.

What experience do you bring to this class?
I have a lot of experience dealing with all kinds of people.  Since high school I have worked several different jobs that each placed high emphasis on customer service and interaction.  I've gotten better at anticipating what people need and what from any service representative, and better at interpreting what people say versus what they might really mean.  I've also recently begun working in a more professional environment that has abstracted me from a lot of direct customer-contact.  It makes it more important for me to anticipate customer needs before they arise because it takes longer to fix issues when you don't have direct contact with the user.

What do you expect to be doing in 10 years?
From where I stand now, there are two possible roads.  On one path, I would be living in Japan, teaching English and possibly tutoring other subjects such as basic computer classes and cello lessons.  On the other path I would still live in the US, run a reasonably young but successful small tech business, and hopefully own an ice cream parlor.  Also, I will be celebrating the 10th year anniversary of you asking me this question.

What do you think will be the next biggest technological advancement in computer science?
This is tricky because there are a lot of incredible things that have been tested and proven possible, but have not been fully developed.  As far as things that will have an obvious and direct impact on daily life, I expect that the physical merging of humans and computers will really surge forward in the next 10-20 years.

In you could travel back in time, who would you like to meet and why?
I'd like to go back as far as possible (as in, to "the beginning") and meet whoever happens to be around.  Then we could settle some of the world's religious strife once and for all.  If I had to pick someone specific, however, I would very much like to meet Albert Einstein.  Many of the things he has written about have really stuck with me, and I think that I could learn a lot just by being around him and observing his thought processes.

Describe your favorite shoes and why they are your favorite.

My favorite shoes are actually my slippers. My turtle slippers.  They are insanely cute, and insanely comfortable.  Observe:

The only footwear I truly love

If you could be fluent in any foreign language that you're not already fluent in, which one would it be and why?

I'd like to learn Korean.  I must admit that I don't particularly have a reason, other than that I have heard that it is one of the "best" languages in the world from a linguist's standpoint.  Both the structure and writing system are thought to be particularly elegant and well-formed.  

Give some interesting fact about yourself.

I can ride a ripstick, I have a pet bearded dragon named Fuzzy, and I tend to hole up in my room and not see my roommates for days on end.  

Fuzzy will take you down.