AI: Is It Inherently Dualistic?

[Picklehead]

Question: Is the concept of AI inherently dualistic? I personally don't believe so, but after reading Searl's Chinese Room argument, he does bring up a good point.

Minds, as we currently know them, reside in, or are the products of, or are our brains. Is the idea that we can take what goes on in our heads and separate it completely from what is actually in our heads, and use that to create a completely differently substrate that does the same thing not just an example of computational equivalence, but also subtly dualistic?

 

[Mentat]

Question: Is the concept of AI inherently dualistic? I personally don't believe so, but after reading Searl's Chinese Room argument, he does bring up a good point.

Minds, as we currently know them, reside in, or are the products of, or are our brains. Is the idea that we can take what goes on in our heads and separate it completely from what is actually in our heads, and use that to create a completely differently substrate that does the same thing not just an example of computational equivalence, but also subtly dualistic?

Perhaps in the trivial way of software/hardware duality. I should think that the fact that I can copy the information from a floppy onto my PC and then burn the same information onto a CD-ROM is the same concept.

 

[katelynndevere]

That's a tricky one!
In many ways, the answer ot this question seems to hinge upon what is meant by the word 'artificial' in AI.
If we accept Searle's axiom that 'brains cause minds', then surely, an 'artificial' brain could cause an artificial mind, and arguably, the mind so caused would be artificial only in the sense of having been created, rather than born of a parent; it would be an actual mind, nonetheless. If such an artificial mind is caused by an artificial brain with artificial qualia, then no duality need be inferred.
This is not the same as the concept of AI in the form of intelligent software, which does indeed appear to suggest dualism.
I'm confused...