 වනරඳුаждන්බ අයා හින්දෙන ලේරත� though it explains mind in terms of mechanical way or in the scientific way the scientific,weight of mind 정도로 beyond the scientific ܍ලනඳයহල  destro�මනඦලේ සිමඩයු පමන් දක් සම different පි ම්මනරයතු කර඾ු ශ෫ඩා . වවජṦද එමතර වතු, බෙඤ්, ව� fruits වෙලයු assumptions which include psychological, epistemological, biological, ontological assumptions about the nature of human knowledge and understanding. And we will see what these assumptions are now. The psychological assumption is that the mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of the mind according to formal rules. Thus in psychology the computer as a model of the mind is conceived of by the cognitive scientist. The epistemological assumption is that all knowledge can be formalized in terms of logical relations and more exactly in terms of Boolean functions. The logical calculus which governs the way the bits are related according to rules. A biological assumption is that the brain has neurons which operates so as to process information in the brain according to a neural network. But in the case of ontological assumption is that computer model of the mind presupposes that all relevant information about the world everything essentially to the production of intelligent behavior must in principle be analyzable as a set of situation free determinate elements. The psychological epistemological, biological and ontological assumptions have this in common. They assume that man must be a device which calculate according to rules on data which takes the form of atomic effects. Dreyfus argues that all these assumptions can be criticized on philosophical grounds. Each of the assumptions lead to conceptual difficulties. He says among philosopher of science one finds that an assumption that machine can do everything that people cannot do followed by an attempt to interpret the what this boards of the philosophy of mind. While among moralists and theologicians one finds a last ditch retreatments to such highly sophisticated behavior as moral choice, love and a creative discovery claim to be beyond the scope of animation. The assumption that machine can do everything that human beings can do is definitely false as the human capacity exceeds that of all machines. All the above mentioned assumptions are definite because they assume more than they can prove. The idea that the human mind functions like a digital computer is according to Dreyfus inadequate and misleading. Dreyfus in his famous article misrepresenting human intelligence points out that the research in artificial intelligence has misrepresented the nature of human intelligence because it emphasizes that the computers have capacity to understand language processing, pattern recognitions, the problem solving etcetera. But this is the only a poor imitation of what human beings can naturally do. Dreyfus points out that artificial intelligence feed of research dedicated to using digital computers to simulate intelligent behavior soon came to be known as artificial intelligence. One should not be mislead by the name no doubt an artificially nervous systems sufficiently like the human one with other features such as sense organs and a body would be intelligent. But the term artificial intelligence does not mean that the workers in artificial intelligence are trying to build an artificial man given the present state of physics chemistry and neurobiology such as understanding is not feasible likewise the term intelligence can be misleading no one expects the resulting robot to reproduce everything that counts as intelligent behavior of human beings according to a artificial intelligence scientist any complete description of behavior should be adequate to serve as a set of instruction that is it should have the characters of a plan that could guide the action described. But as Dreyfus argues that what instructions could one give a person about to understand the actions perhaps some very general rule such as listen to the instructions look towards an object make your selections etcetera it is not clear why or how a complete description in psychology should take the form of set of instructions. Again artificial intelligence scientists say that human bodies are part of the physical world and objects in the physical world have been shown to obey the laws which can be expressed in a formalism manipulable on a digital computer to be more particular if the nervous systems obey the laws of physics and chemistry then it is bound to be a part of the physical world accepting the fundamental assumptions that the nervous systems is a part of the physical world that all physical processes can be described in a mathematical formalism which can in turn be manipulated by a digital computer one can arrive at the strong claim that the behavior which results from human informations processing whether direct formalizable or not can always be indirectly reproduced on a digital machines against the above view Dreyfus argues that every form of information processing cannot be principle be simulated by a digital computer therefore the strong claim that every forms of information processing can be emitted by a digital computer is misleading arguing against the epistemological hypothesis Dreyfus says that either reason to suppose that there can be a formal theory of what linguistic called pragmatics there are two reasons to believe that such a generation of syntactic theory of impossible firstly an argument of principles for there is to be a formal theory of pragmatics one would have to have a theory of all human knowledge but this may well be impossible secondly a description objections not all linguistic behavior is rule like we recognize some linguistic expression as odd as breaking the rules and yet we are able to understand them more clearly there are cases in which a native speaker recognize that a certain linguistic usage is odd and yet is able to understand for example the phrase the idea is that in the pen is a clear in a situation in which we are discussing promising authors and here the idea is in the pen is not referred to a particular physical or a material things but here we are referring to a promising authors but in fact an idea cannot be in the pen because obviously an idea is not an object it is a one of the quality which is existing in a conscious human being as we know for grand behavior is either arbitrary or strictly rule like therefore in confronting a new usage a machine must either create it as a clear case failing under rules or as arbitrary a native speaker feels he or she can recognize the usage as odd not falling under the rules and yet can make sense of it gives it a meaning in the context of human life these usage which are arbitrary are likely to be understood in the context of human activities the refuse critic therefore is not addressed against computer for say but against one particular way of programming them refuse seems willing to grant that machine intelligence can replace human intelligence this shows the limits of artificial intelligence as a program now we will see pen rose arguments are against artificial intelligence pen rose one of the most important physicist and as well as a philosopher in his classic books on what the shadows of the mind said that very difficult to simulate the human mind and while arguing against a artificial intelligence he says that we accept our own belief that true intelligence requires consciousness and we are implicitly suggesting that intelligence cannot be properly simulated by a arithmetic by a computer in the sense that we use that terms today he argue that there must be an essential algorithmic ingredient in the actions of consciousness and his suggestion is that unconscious actions of brain are one that proceeds according to algorithmic rules whereas the consciousness acts of the minds are null algorithmic pen rose discusses the nature of consciousness and competitions and provide an answer to the questions whether our conscious awareness of happiness, pain, love, aesthetic sensibility will understanding etc can fit into a computational model of mind his argument consisting in the following propositions all thinking is computation that is all cognitive acts can be mathematically computed physical actions of the brain can be simulated computationally but this computational simulation itself cannot evoke awareness thirdly awareness cannot be explained by physical computational or any other scientific terms awareness understanding consciousness intelligence perceptions etc are all our intuitively given mental activities these cannot be computational explained according to pen rose therefore according to him for example intelligence requires understanding and understanding requires awareness and awareness is the basic feature of consciousness and these mental activities are basic to the human mind pen rose remark that a person's awareness is to be taken in effect as a piece of software and his particular manifestation as a material human being is to taken as the operation of this software by the hardware of the brain and body however human awareness and understanding are not the result of computations undertaken by the brain understanding is the inborn activity of the human mind which cannot be simulated by a computer human understanding cannot be replaced by a computer simulations the strong AI much against our ordinary understanding of the mental activities tries to reduce them to computational functions according to strong artificial intelligence the differences between the essential functioning of the human brain including all its consciousness manifestations and of a thermostat lies only in this much greater complications perhaps higher or structure or self referential properties or some other attributes that one might assign to an algorithmic in the case of a brain most importantly all mental qualities thinking feeling intelligence consciousness are to be regarded according to this view merely as a aspect of this a complicated functioning that is to say that they are features merely of the algorithmic being carried out by the brain it is therefore obvious that the strong AI cannot explain the mental activities properly because it misses the very non computational and non algorithmic nature of the mental activities penrose says that in the human mind there is a non variability of thought you know to make his argument stronger he quotes from Francis Galton who said it is a serious drawback to me in writing still more in explaining myself that I do not think as easily in words or otherwise it often happens that after being hard at work and having arrived at results that are perfectly clear and satisfactory to myself when I try to express them in language I feel that I must begin by putting myself upon quite another intellectual plane I have to translate my thoughts into a language that does not run very evenly with them I therefore waste a vast deal of time in seeking appropriate words and phrases and I am conscious when requires to speak on a sudden of being often very obscure through mere verbal maladro tiness and not through want of clearness of perception this is one of the small awareness of my life once it is accepted that much of conscious thinking can be of a non verbal character as described it follows that the non verbal thought can never be computational in character therefore the mathematical activities is very teeny area of conscious activity that is indulge in by a small minority of conscious beings for a limited fractions of their conscious lives there is a vast area of human consciousness which does not follow the mathematical rules of competitions this non computational consciousness is that which is that allows us to become directly aware of something this direct awareness plays a very important role in our mental life as we have already mentioned thus human understanding and consciousness awareness cannot be reduced to computational processes following argument think there is something essential in human understanding that is not possible to simulate by any computational means some philosopher believes that consciousness is a computational property but the fact is that not even scientist nobody know how to design a conscious machines machine interpret the concept of machines in two ways in the narrow sense and in the wider sense the narrations to refer those machines which are constructed by a human being such as motor cars computers and etc in these machines consciousness can be found in the wider sense of the world machine there are mechanical devices which are the artifacts or the intentional products of some kind of intelligence in these conceptions machine put forward the following questions could a human artifact be conscious could an artifact of any considerable consciousness the first question concerns whether human beings can produce a conscious artifact with his superior technological power it is like asking whether we shall ever travel to another Gagalski the second question raises the issues of whether the concept of an artifact is such as to eliminate the positions of consciousness machines does not rule out the possibility that an artifact could be conscious according to him suppose there were an intelligent clever enough to create beings physical just like us then I think this intelligence would have created conscious beings or consider the doctrine of creationism and if we are the artifacts of God this is not a reason to suppose ourselves unconscious after all that is a sense in which we are artifacts for we are the products of natural selections operating upon inorganic materials to generate brains capable of subserving consciousness in the wider sense the human beings are artifacts of nature and are conscious even then all artifacts like tables and chairs are not conscious consciousness is an increasing property of organisms and so in the strict sense only organisms are consciousness that is only living things can be conscious and so a conscious being must be animate organic and alive as urgenstein put it only of a living human beings and what resembles behaves like a living human beings can one say it has sensation it sees is blind here is deep is conscious or unconscious that is a conceptual link between being conscious being alive according to this view a conscious being either must be alive or must like what is alive whether the similarity is between the behavior of the things in questions in other words only of what behaves like a living things we can say that it is a conscious our concept of a conscious states is the concept of a state with a certain sort of behavior expressions we cannot really make sense of conscious stone because the stone does not behave like conscious beings the point is that being biological alive is not same as being consciousness but it is necessarily that a conscious being should behave like a living thing instead of identifying consciousness with the metallic composition of the brain we should identify it with certain higher order properties of the brain which manifests in conscious behavior for example pain is a higher order property of physical states which consist in having a certain pattern of causes and effects and certain outward behavior now coming back to the problem of artificial intelligence it goes without saying that machines do not have consciousness the so called artificial intelligence does not entail consciousness the computing machines of artificial intelligence are limited in a way the human beings are not so that it is out of the question for a conscious mind to arise merely in virtue of computations now this is all about refuse argument against artificial intelligence and also penrose argument against artificial intelligence and now we will see some of the argument which has been put forward by got gaudel and gaudel has given very interesting argument against artificial intelligence let us see what gaudel says against artificial intelligence gaudel's theorem state that in any consistence which is strong enough to provide simply arithmetic there are formula which cannot be proved in the system both which can see to be true such a formula is the formula which is unprobable in the system if this were provable in the system then it will be unprobable in the systems so there will be a contradictions so the formula this formula is unprobable in the system is not provable in the system but unprobable in the system further if this formula is unprobable in the system then it is true that the formula is unprobable in the system that is this formula is unprobable in the system is true the whole effort of gaudel's theorem is to show that all consistence adequate for simply arithmetic that is contain the natural numbers and the operations of additions and manipulations thirdly they are incomplete that is contain unprobable through perfectly meaningful formula which we can to see to be true standing outside the systems gaudel's theorem must applicable cybernetic machines because it is of the essence of being a machine that it should be a concrete instantiation of a formal systems it follows that given any machine that is consistent and capable of doing simply arithmetic there is a formula which though true is not provable in the formal system of the machine thus it follows that no machines can be a complete or adequate model of the mind that is the minds are essentially different for machines as we know a cybernetic machines is a device which performs a set of operations according to definite rules normally we program a machines that is we can that is we give it a set of instruction about its functioning and we need we feed in the initial information on which a machines is to perform its calculations when we consider the mind on the model of cybernetic mechanism we have a mechanical model in view if human mind is such a model mind is determined by the way it is made then there is no possibility of its acting on its own as it is governed by certain rules of constructions and certain inputs of informations but this is not the characteristics of mind as the mind does not act under ready made rules in the machines there are some formal rules of inferences having been applied to some previous formula we can construct gaudelian formulae in the formal systems this formula cannot be proved in the systems thus the machines cannot be proved the corresponding formulae as true but one can see that gaudelian formulae is true we can now see that any mechanical model of mind must include a mechanism that can elucidate truths of arithmetic because this is something which minds can do in fact it is easy to produce mechanical models which will in many respects produce truth of arithmetic far better that what the human beings can do but for every machines there is a truth which it cannot be proved but which can be proved by the mind thus in the words of Lucas this is not to say that we cannot build a machines to simulate any desired piece of mind like behavior it is only that we cannot build a machines to simulate every piece of mind like behavior we build machines capable of reproducing bits of mind like behavior and indeed outdoing of the performance of the human minds but however machine cannot do much better understanding of truth factors of the any kind of computational work but in the case of machine that kind of truth is not there according to gaudel gaudel argument shows that the mechanical model of mind because of its inherent limitations cannot simulate the functions of the human mind human mind which are infinite and indefinite further it shows that machines are finitely closed and hence cannot compare with the human minds the way gaudel is explaining is criticizing that the possibility of any kind of rules which formula which can be proved in the systems but is very difficult to find in the truth of that therefore machines are incapable of doing any kind of mental activities in this two lectures on limitations of artificial intelligence I have explained some of the arguments against artificial intelligence some of the next lectures I will be explaining on how Cartesian mind is non-computational and how the supervenience and emergentism are a thesis of mind establishing one kind of parallelism and then some other arguments on the theory of mind which will not only establishing the existence of concept of mind which is distanced from the body at the same time some of the arguments are arguing against artificial intelligence thank you