Exit the "Chinese Room" or whether the machine can think
Foreword
I have long been interested in the problem of consciousness and its connection with the brain. One day, I came across a very interesting thought experiment called the “Chinese Room”. I don’t remember in which publication I first read about him, but he was very interested in me, so I began to study the question. Only after reading the original article [1] did I understand that in most sources the ideas of the author are presented simply, distorted and not fully understood. The experiment with the Chinese room poses questions and tries to give answers. The questions are very interesting, and the answers, in my opinion, are unsatisfactory. Therefore, I thought for a long time and decided to formulate myself a solution to this problem, which will be my article.
The essence
In 1980, the philosopher John Searle first presented his thought experiment in the article “Minds, Brains, and Programs” of The Behavioral and Brain Sciences magazine. The experiment has caused a lot of controversy among people involved in the problems of the philosophy of consciousness and artificial intelligence. The stated purpose of the article was to prove two statements: 1) The intentionality of man (and animals) is the result of the causal properties of the brain; and 2) Computer execution of a program cannot be a sufficient condition for the emergence of intentionality.
Three decades before Searle’s article was published, Alan Turing formulated his well-known criterion for a reasonable machine, also known as the Turing Test: a computer capable of supporting dialogue (textual) and, therefore, for a person, should be considered reasonable. By the end of the 70s, computers and AI programs had reached the level where some of their developers began to declare that their machines were capable of understanding English. Searle’s article, containing the experiment described below, was largely a reaction to such statements and the general opinion that a computer is in principle capable of understanding human speech.
What was the experiment? Searle proposed to present the room in which the person is located. Cards with Chinese hieroglyphs can be drawn inside the room. The person inside the room does not speak or read Chinese at all, so the meaning of the hieroglyphs is not clear to him. At the same time, a person is given detailed instructions on how to operate with incoming cards and which cards to answer. Thus, a person outside the room can ask various questions using cards and get intelligible answers. The person asking the questions should get the impression that the person inside the room speaks Chinese and understands the meaning of their dialogue, but in fact he only mindlessly executes instructions and does not understand a word. Moreover, the person in the room is not even able to gradually learn the language,
In this example, it is easy to see a parallel with the computer. The computer also operates data in binary code, which does not carry any meaning for it, the machine simply performs arithmetic and logical operations according to the instructions it contains.
According to Searl, a computer (or a Chinese room) is not able to achieve understanding, because operates only with syntactic constructions. The person, in turn, perceives and operates with meanings, and not just with the symbols themselves, which the computer is not capable of. To summarize Searl’s ideas in the article, he is not against the idea of the existence of artificial intelligence as such. Its main idea is that for the existence of consciousness there is not a sufficiently formal program, but a carrier with properties that give rise to intentionality is necessary, but a formal program does not carry meaning and cannot serve as a carrier of understanding or consciousness: “... only a machine could think, and only very special kinds of machines, This is a product of the brain that has been used ... [1]. Thus Searle says that intentionality is a necessary property for the emergence of thinking, and this intentionality is a product of some intrinsic properties of the brain. A machine with the same properties is capable of thinking. A classic computer does not possess such properties, therefore, no matter what program is written, it is not capable of leading to the emergence of thinking, and, as a result, to the emergence of consciousness.
“It’s a funky way to try it.” The formal program carries no additional intentionality. It adds nothing, for example, to understand Chinese. ” [1]
(The purpose of the example with the Chinese room was to try to reflect this, showing that as soon as we put something that really possesses intentionality (human) into the system and program it with a formal program, then we can be sure that this formal program It does not carry any additional intentionality. It does not add anything, for example, a person’s ability to understand Chinese).
The ideas set forth by Searl cannot be called complete, which caused quite a few disputes around them. However, these disputes did not lead to a final conclusion. Neither Searl’s opponents, nor his supporters, nor the philosopher himself, came to the solution of important questions, the answers to which should lie at the basis of thoughts about consciousness and AI: “What properties of the brain give rise to intentionality?”, “What is the meaning? And how does it arise? ”,“ What is the process of formative understanding? ”.
In this article I will try to give answers to these questions.
First of all, it is necessary to deal with intentionality - an intrinsic property of the brain - which, according to Searl, is so necessary for the existence of consciousness. To do this, I want to deviate somewhat from the main topic and consider briefly the origin and evolution of living organisms.
Biological evolution can be viewed as a continuation of chemical evolution, which in turn is a continuation of physical evolution. According to modern cosmological ideas, after the big bang, a huge amount of energy / substance was released, which, as the universe expanded and cooled, condensed into a huge number of various particles. The life time of most particles, due to their instability, turned out to be extremely short, and as time passed, only the most stable particles remained, which became the basis for the formation of atoms of known chemical elements. The atoms of the substance interacted, forming various compounds. The most stable of them were accumulated, the unstable disintegrated and merged into stable ones. As a result of the prevailing unique conditions on Earth, compounds appeared which were not only fairly stable, but could also duplicate their molecules, they were the ancestors of DNA. Gradually, such replicating molecules, by random recombination, evolved to a state where they could not only reproduce their own kind, but also create favorable conditions around themselves for stable existence and reproduction. This created favorable environment has become the internal environment of bacteria and unicellular organisms, and the control molecules, which can already be called DNA, have acquired the function of supporting the dynamic balance of the organism (internal environment) - homeostasis. Next were the mutations and natural selection that created the living world that we know. The idea that all living organisms are merely complex mechanisms for the propagation of a DNA molecule is not new, and is considered in detail, for example, By Richard Dawkins [2]. Thus, it is possible to trace how the origin of life stems from the fundamental laws of the existing Universe. Roughly speaking, the whole evolution of the Universe is just a chaotic movement of energy, subject to probabilistic laws. What happens is most likely, what remains the most stable in time. A living cell, the smallest unit of life, can be viewed as a huge chemical plant with many complex chemical processes that, individually, each have no internal purpose, but all together maintain a stable internal cell environment that is necessary for the existence and replication of DNA. We say that the goal of all living things is survival and reproduction, this is undoubtedly so from the point of view of biology, but it must be noted that the man himself "assigned" these goals to the living, to describe the general nature of the behavior of living organisms. If we are consistent with the above-described reflections on evolution, then we must recognize that living organisms have no purpose or intrinsic intentionality in principle, just as a falling apple has no purpose - it falls obeying fundamental physical laws (we can say that an apple seeks fall, but this does not mean that the desire to fall is due to some inherent intentions of the apple). A living organism is a way of existence of a substance due only to the fundamental physical laws, there is no need for additional magic. I am writing about this to show that in terms of intentionality there is no fundamental difference between the living and the nonliving. DNA is a molecule, it does not and cannot have targets,
Later in this article, when the words of goal, need, intentionality with respect to living organisms are used, it is necessary to remember that these concepts are only convenient abstractions used to describe behavior, followed by real processes due to fundamental objective laws, and not obscure subjective factors.
As already mentioned, the main distinguishing feature of living organisms from non-living physical structures is the ability of the former to replicate and maintain a stable internal environment — homeostasis. These are precisely properties (!), But for convenience we will call these properties as goals and return to the fact that the goals of living organisms are reproduction and maintenance of homeostasis. Consider the standard behavior of a living organism.
A living organism cannot passively exist expecting favors from the outside world, it has to actively influence the environment in order to achieve its goals - to survive and multiply. These goals are the starting points for his behavior. But how exactly to behave? The main question that confronts any living organism at any given time is “What to do next?”. Consider a hypothetical simplest single-celled organism. In the scheme of his work there are three main elements: the external environment, internal state and program (1). Each of them can be the initiator of the movement. For example, in order to answer the main question, an internal state of the body is checked, which determines current needs (for example, nutrition). In a cell, this check is due to the chaotic movement of the molecules of the substance of the internal environment. Separate organelles and DNA interact with chemicals and react accordingly. In response to the internal state, a program is launched that is determined by DNA, and in more complex multicellular organisms, the program is determined by the nervous system. The program starts a process that changes the internal state, which in turn changes the external environment (for example, the organism moves in space). The external environment affects the internal state, and the cycle closes. This scheme is applicable to the simplest organisms as well as to the most complex, including humans. Moreover, this scheme is applicable to different parts of the body, its various systems of different levels. " which is determined by DNA, and in more complex multicellular organisms the program is determined by the nervous system. The program starts a process that changes the internal state, which in turn changes the external environment (for example, the organism moves in space). The external environment affects the internal state, and the cycle closes. This scheme is applicable to the simplest organisms as well as to the most complex, including humans. Moreover, this scheme is applicable to different parts of the body, its various systems of different levels. " which is determined by DNA, and in more complex multicellular organisms the program is determined by the nervous system. The program starts a process that changes the internal state, which in turn changes the external environment (for example, the organism moves in space). The external environment affects the internal state, and the cycle closes. This scheme is applicable to the simplest organisms as well as to the most complex, including humans. Moreover, this scheme is applicable to different parts of the body, its various systems of different levels. " and the loop closes. This scheme is applicable to the simplest organisms as well as to the most complex, including humans. Moreover, this scheme is applicable to different parts of the body, its various systems of different levels. " and the loop closes. This scheme is applicable to the simplest organisms as well as to the most complex, including humans. Moreover, this scheme is applicable to different parts of the body, its various systems of different levels. "
Let's remember the considered scheme and we will return to the Chinese room. As I have already said, the principle of its functioning is essentially identical to the device of a standard computer, and the experiment itself perfectly demonstrates the limitations of the machine’s ability to understand the surrounding world. But hey, isn't the brain in the same situation as the person inside the Chinese room? In fact, the brain deals with the same Chinese literacy. The brain sits in the dark of the skull, isolated from everything except the meaningless code that it receives from the senses. If we connect the electrode to the nerve cell, any nerve cell, whether it belongs to the brain or the retina, all we will see is a series of power surges. For ease of observation, such pulses are often connected to a loudspeaker. then they are heard as uneven chatter. The nerve cells of the organs of perception — the cells of the retina of the eye, the hair cells of the ear, etc. — emit such a chatter. This chirps the brain and receives from the senses. All that the brain can know about the outside world is that it looks like a chirping rumble of billions of cells. In this buzz there is absolutely nothing indicating the presence of space and time, the existence of objects or people around. Sounds, shapes, colors, smells - it's all quite different from a strange and meaningless chatter. From our own experience, we know that the brain still managed to decipher this code and use it quite successfully for orientation in the world. Why does the brain succeed, but is it fundamentally beyond the power of a person in a Chinese room (or computer)? After all, they are in the same position!
The fact is that the method of posing a mental experiment deprived the person inside the room of one crucially important opportunity - the person cannot ask questions outside. The conditions of the experiment say that he can take the cards, manipulate them according to the instructions and thus answer the questions put before him, although the person himself does not understand what these questions are, he does not even understand what these questions are. In addition, a person, operating in the Chinese room, does not pursue any goals with his own manipulations - there is no intentionality. Cards do not affect the state of a person inside a room, they are neither useful nor harmful, for example, for survival. Although it can be said that the cards influence the internal state of the room as a whole, as they force to perform manipulations, but this influence is neutral, it does not bring the system closer to the goal and does not remove it, since there is no goal at all except manipulation for the sake of manipulation, as well as no feedback. If we consider the work of the nerve cell and the signals it receives (chemical, by its nature), then it becomes obvious that they directly affect the work of the cell. They change its internal state. At the same time, the nerve cell has an optimum mode of operation for it and an internal state, the optimum chemical composition. Therefore, the signals do not just change the work of the cell, but also shift its internal state relative to the target (optimal) value. The target internal state is defined by the program, which is recorded in the DNA. DNA is in a position similar to the brain and to CC, because it does not contact directly with the outside world, but only through the medium of the intracellular medium. In this way,
We can say that the program itself is a carrier of intentionality. But where did the intentionality come from there? As already mentioned, DNA exists and functions according to physical / chemical laws. Replication and other functions related to maintaining homeostasis are DNA properties arising from these laws, and not the goals or needs of DNA. Just as redness is a property of a red apple, not its intention. It follows, as I have already stated at the beginning of the article, that what we call the intentionality of living organisms is not in its essence. Therefore, the question “where does intentionality come from?” Does not make sense. Intentionality is not there, as there is nowhere else. There is only a chain of causes and effects that follows universal physical laws. Intentionality - human invention and convenient abstraction, however, I also wrote this. But we will continue to use this concept, since it is convenient for describing the complex behavior of organisms. To summarize what we have written, let us build a logical chain of the emergence of "intentionality":
Physical laws → Chemical laws → DNA + evolution → Replication and Homeostasis → Target internal state → Intentionality (target behavior)
Let us return to the question of “understanding”. What is it? When can we say that the Chinese room “understood”? Where is the boundary between the understanding system and the system that is not capable of understanding? Can a single cell have any "understanding"? And if it is capable, then how is a cell different from an uncomprehending one?
You can consider animals, as their central nervous system decreases and is simplified, and you can ask yourself if this animal is capable of understanding? For me personally, it is extremely difficult to grope the line between understanding and not understanding in this way, so I decided to go from the bottom up, starting from a single nerve cell.
The nerve cell, in contrast to the "Chinese room", is capable of not only reacting passively, receiving signals, but also actively influencing their source. Methods of such exposure can be, for example, a change in the number of mediator receptors on the postsynaptic cell membrane, or a change in the frequency and strength (number of mediator molecules) of the generated signals. The latter method is all the more obvious, the simpler the considered neural network. On the basis of the universal scheme of functioning of living organisms (1), we consider the simplest neural network (2) that performs the work of this scheme.
Suppose an external stimulus, in this scheme, is a light source, the receptor (P) is the light receptor on the retina of the eye, (H) is the control neuron, and the actuator (A) is the muscle responsible for constriction of the pupil. Obviously, the scheme works as follows: the light hits the receptor; it generates pulses arriving at the control neuron; which in turn generates control pulses to constrict the pupil; the pupil reduces the amount of light falling on the receptor; as a result, the frequency of impulses generated by the receptor changes, and so on in a circle. The controlling neuron in this scheme does not know anything about the outside world, it does not communicate with it directly. All that is “known” to this neuron is how its “behavior” affects its internal state, i.e. the pulses generated at the output affect the character of the pulses received at the input. The neuron, like the brain as a whole, as well as the person in the Chinese room, is in isolation, all that it “cares about” and is accessible to perception is its internal state. The external environment has an impact, changing the internal state, and, starting from this change, the neuron changes its behavior. In this case, the goal of behavior is to achieve the internal state or mode of operation that is optimal for the cell. Going back a little, it should be noted that the target state is not the final goal, which, as already mentioned, is the survival and reproduction of the organism. the neuron changes its behavior. In this case, the goal of behavior is to achieve the internal state or mode of operation that is optimal for the cell. Going back a little, it should be noted that the target state is not the final goal, which, as already mentioned, is the survival and reproduction of the organism. the neuron changes its behavior. In this case, the goal of behavior is to achieve the internal state or mode of operation that is optimal for the cell. Going back a little, it should be noted that the target state is not the final goal, which, as already mentioned, is the survival and reproduction of the organism.
Just for the Program information is available only about the internal state of the body. Achieving the target internal state and is a condition for survival and / or reproduction. The target state is not something permanent, but depends on the external conditions and personal experience of the cell. It is also worth noting that for the neuron itself it is not worth the task of sole survival and reproduction, since it is only part of the whole organism. However, to pursue any other goals other than the “personal” neuron (like any other cell in the body) is not capable, due to the limited information it receives. Therefore, the key to successful functioning of the whole organism is that the “personal” goals of its individual components are consistent, and their achievement by individual cells leads to the survival of the organism as a whole.
In order to show how a cell can understand something or not understand, consider another example. Imagine a neuron that is affected by two chemicals: A and B. Both substances affect the internal state of the neuron. Substance A is a neurotransmitter to which a neuron is able to respond, because possesses the corresponding receptors and program recorded in DNA. Substance A depolarizes the membrane, an action potential arises, some sodium ions enter the cell, some potassium ions escape from the cell, then the ion balance is restored using sodium-potassium pumps, which are activated by ATP synthesized inside the cell. In addition, elementary learning occurs, i.e. changes in synaptic conductivity and some other processes that are an act of adaptation to external influences. This is a normal process of vital activity of the neuron, all within the framework of the DNA program. There was an impact, the impact changed the internal state, the DNA launched the corresponding program, the internal state returned to the target one. The neuron is ready for this kind of exposure and knows how to behave in order to return to the target state.
In the case of substance B, the situation is somewhat different. Assume that these are heavy metal ions that gradually penetrate into the cell, and the cell does not have molecular mechanisms for recognition and removal of these ions. In turn, these ions, accumulating inside the cell, interfere with the normal functioning of the ion channels and thereby disturb the balance of substances.
The existing intracellular mechanisms are not enough to maintain the balance at the proper level, the avoidance of exposure also does not occur, the cell is not able to adapt to the effects, to return to the target state. The lack of an adequate adaptation reaction can be regarded as a “lack of understanding” by the cell of this type of action. In the course of evolution, cells are able to acquire this “understanding” if such an impact will have a significant evolutionary pressure.
Let's sum up. What is a system (for example, a living organism) capable of understanding? The system must have the following properties:
1. Intentionality . That is, the functioning of the system should have a goal - the achievement and / or maintenance of a certain internal state;
2Causality . The system is able to perceive only such an impact, which affects the internal state of the system in such a way that it shifts from the target state;
3. Adequate response . After the impact has caused a change in the internal state, the system should try to return to the target state. This is achieved by changing external influences, i.e. there is a reverse impact on the external environment (the simplest example is avoidance).
4. Reaction implies a Program.that triggers behavior in response to the corresponding exposure. The Program stores target states and the order of action / reaction in various situations. It should be noted that such a Program has some kind of foresight, because in order to trigger adequate behavior, you need to know that the result of this behavior (with some probability) will be the achievement of the target state.
Living organisms acquire such knowledge or foresight in the course of phylogenesis and ontogenesis.
It is not difficult to make sure that any living organism has the listed properties. What about the "Chinese Room"? As Searle correctly noted, she lacks intentionality. From our reasoning, this follows from the lack of a target internal state. Accordingly, all other points are also absent, because they are based on the first. Signals (impact) transmitted in QC, affect the internal state, but do not displace it from the target, they are neutral. And if there is no bias, then there can be no adequate reaction. True, QA has a Program, but this program does not meet the requirements described, namely, it does not trigger adequate behavior.
Is a formal program capable of endowing a classical computer with thinking, i.e. to give the system 4 described properties? Obviously, the answer is yes. I do not want to describe how this is achieved, as it is quite simple to do, based on the above theses. In the end, DNA is also a formal program. Instead, I propose to consider a more radical and favorite example of many philosophers - an ordinary thermostat.
A thermostat is a device for maintaining a constant temperature. The scheme and principle of operation of the thermostat can be very simple. The elementary thermostat has a sensor that is triggered at a predetermined temperature threshold value and transmits a control signal to turn on / off the heating element. For example, such a thermostat maintains the temperature in the room at 25 degrees C. Initially, the heater works and raises the temperature in the room. When the temperature rises to 25 degrees, the sensor triggers and shuts off the heater. The room begins to cool gradually. After the temperature has dropped below a certain threshold value (for example, 23 degrees Celsius), the sensor is activated and turns on the heater. The cycle repeats.
Check whether the thermostat has 4 properties of thinking (semantic) systems. The first is the target state and intentionality. The thermostat "seeks" to maintain the temperature of the sensor in the region of 25 degrees. This fits well with the definition of the target internal state of the system. The second is external influence. The thermostat is able to perceive the temperature and only it, thus, the system is one-dimensional, besides it has only two states, roughly speaking, “On” and “Off”. The range of "sensations" also comes down to two — the temperature is above or below the threshold value. The third is an adequate response. The behavior of the thermostat is adequately affected and is aimed at restoring the target internal state - the set temperature of the sensor. In this case, the thermostat acts on the external environment, which in turn affects the sensor. All within the framework of the described concept. The fourth point is the program. It can be said that the program is defined by the thermostat design itself and the sensor parameters.
It turns out that the thermostat is able to think and understand. To some, this will seem ridiculous, to someone insane, but someone will agree with the course of my reflections. Besides, I am not the first to come to similar conclusions [3]. Of course, the level of understanding of a thermostat is completely different than that possessed by a person or even a mouse, this is the most elementary level. Therefore, attempts to draw parallels between a person and a thermostat may seem attracted.
Human thinking involves the use of a huge number of elementary schemes, interconnected, and nested in each other. The world of internal states is infinitely richer than the world of a thermostat, but the essence of the process of thinking itself remains the same at all levels. This essence is reflected in the scheme (1) and the four properties of the thinking system.
It is important to always remember when studying the structures of the brain and its functions that the main purpose and end product of the brain is not thinking, but action. Action aimed at the external, with respect to the structure under study, the environment. The purpose of this action is to change the impact of the environment back on the internal state of the body (structures, cells). This is the cycle described in scheme (1): Ext. Wednesday → Int. State → Program → Internal. State → Ext. Wednesday. This cycle and generates a "meaning" forms a semantic loop. At the same time, the outside world, as well as other structures of the organism or neighboring cells, can act as the external environment, depending on what level of the system is considered.
Thus, the meaning of any information (impact) is what effect it has on the internal state, and what response the body (structure) can have in order to change this effect. Speaking even simpler, the meaning of the information is to answer the question “What should be done in connection with the information received?”. The purpose of the brain ultimately also comes down to the answer to this question, the main question, as I called it at the beginning of the article when describing the scheme (1): “What to do next (to survive and multiply)?”.
Conclusion
In conclusion, let us return to the theses that John Searle put forward in his article.
1) The intentionality of man (and animals) is the result of the causal properties of the brain.
This statement is only partly true. If you look carefully, the roots of intentionality go deeper. The carrier of the intentionality of all life is DNA. This is a complex molecule with a key property - the ability to self-replication. It is this property that made possible the evolution of DNA, during which the molecule built around itself more and more complex living organisms. It is DNA that determines the structure, development and behavior of a living organism. The CNS appears somewhat later in the evolutionary process. It is necessary to manage a large and complex multicellular organism and can significantly expand the behavioral repertoire. The brain is a complex dynamic self-organizing structure.
The internal state of the brain, on the one hand, reflects certain characteristics of the external world, on the other hand, contains information on the state and functioning of the organism. The goal of the brain is to maintain an optimal internal state of the body. To achieve this goal, the brain acts both reactively and proactively. As can be seen from the reasoning, the brain fits in well with the External World <-> Internal State <-> Program. The brain, like DNA, acts as a carrier of the program. This program is partially set by DNA during the development of the organism, partly formed by life experience. It is stored in the structure of connections of the neural network and the current activity of the neurons. The program is a carrier of intentionality - the direction of thinking and behavior. So you can say
2) The execution of a computer program can not be a sufficient condition for the emergence of intentionality.
As it was shown, the carrier of intentionality in living organisms is the program encoded in the structure of DNA. The physical carrier itself is not fundamental in this case, the main thing is that it is able to interact with the internal environment and have sufficient structural capacity to accommodate the program. In this sense, DNA is not at all preferable to the semiconductor elements from which the computer is made. Any organism is, ultimately, a machine, a talented engineering solution to evolution. Any machine is a physical carrier of the program, which is recorded in the structure of the machine itself. At the same time, any program needs a physical medium in order to be launched.
How does all of the above relate to the ability of a computer to understand human speech? Any external influence makes sense only being embedded in a chain of cause-effect interactions Ext. Wednesday (impact) → Int. State → Program → Internal. State → Ext. Wednesday (impact). This is also applicable to words, with the only qualification, since words are high-level abstractions, the cause and effect chain for them will look more complicated, although it will preserve the general structure and meaning. In other words, a word, like everything else, makes sense only if it can affect the internal state in such a way that it shifts it from the target state. For a person, the word "red" is of great importance. For example, red berries are ripe and not green. This is useful information for survival. For computer, In order for the word red to acquire meaning, moreover, similar to the human, it needs sensors that perceive the red color, the purpose and the interrelation of the red color and the achievement of the goal. In one, Searle was completely right, modern computers only simulate understanding, since their “knowledge” of words is not based on real experience, but on other words, which in theory can give rise to some degree of understanding, but completely different from human. In addition, modern computers and programs are not endowed with internal target states, which makes the appearance of meaning impossible. their “knowledge” of words is not based on real experience, but on other words, which in theory can give rise to some degree of understanding, but completely different from human. In addition, modern computers and programs are not endowed with internal target states, which makes the appearance of meaning impossible. their “knowledge” of words is not based on real experience, but on other words, which in theory can give rise to some degree of understanding, but completely different from human. In addition, modern computers and programs are not endowed with internal target states, which makes the appearance of meaning impossible.
PS The chain of thought in this article goes from the bottom up, from elementary concepts and objects, to more complex and abstract. Reflections follow the logic of evolution and generally rely on the evolutionary paradigm. This approach seems to the author the most scientific. Terminology also develops from the bottom up. As a result, modern concepts get a new interpretation. The author did not set himself the goal of substituting terms, and all the more he has no desire to use this as a cunning device, to facilitate the task of explaining the phenomenon of thinking. A new interpretation of terms is an inevitable consequence of consistent reflections based on a scientific approach. The modern philosophy of consciousness often uses the “top down” approach and therefore constantly juggles with terms that refer to each other. As a result the picture is like trying to pull yourself out of the swamp with your own mustache. The difference of this article is that thinking is derived directly from the fundamental laws. Thus, thinking loses its halo of mystery and ceases to be the prerogative of man, higher animals, and even animals in general.
It can be noted that in the article the concept of thinking is equated with the concept of understanding. It is necessary to clarify this point to avoid misunderstanding. If we talk about thinking in its classical definition, this is a complex multi-level process, and understanding is only part of it. Moreover, the understanding in the form in which it is used in this article also falls short of its generally accepted original. One can cite a certain hierarchy of existing generally accepted concepts that are close to the issue discussed here:
Sensation → Perception → Understanding → Thinking
Strictly speaking, what I call here the act of thinking is closer in its properties to the lowest level of this hierarchy - sensation. Here is the definition of sensation taken from Wikipedia: “ Feelingsensual experience is the simplest mental process, which is a mental reflection of individual properties and conditions of the external environment, the subject of internal or external stimuli and stimuli with the participation of the nervous system. ” As for perception , it is based on sensations, but is a more complex process, involving the active extraction of information from the outside world, including through the impact on the world. Understanding means not only the perception of information, but also the integration of the received information into its own knowledge structure. Thinkingis located at the top of the chain, it includes all previous levels and other processes involving the handling of the information obtained (analysis, synthesis, abstraction, classification, etc.). Since each subsequent level of the above hierarchy of concepts includes the previous one, the concepts overlap. If you gradually move from thinking in its entirety and complexity, as it is presented in humans, to more elementary levels of thinking, like in simpler animals, then you will notice that the concepts of sensation, perception, understanding and thinking are gradually getting closer and take exactly that form. , which they received in this article, becoming a single concept. If we analyze the elementary act of thinking described above, it includes the beginnings of all the concepts included in the chain. Consideration of thinking at its elementary level allows you to get rid of excess husk, and see the essence of the process. The newly formed notion of thinking is a good starting point for further reflection and research.
1. Searle J. Minds, Brains, and Programs. The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence / Boden M (ed.) Oxford. 1990. First published in the journal: The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980, No. 3, pp. 417-424.
2. Dawkins, Richard. Selfish gene. - Per. from English M .: AST: CORPUS, 2013
3. Chalmers D. Conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. M .: URSS, 2013