Searle V Dennet

A.I. visually shows the heart of Searle and Dennet's argument. At the beginning we see a woman robot who is void of deep emotions. She defines love and explains the bodies reaction when we feel love; she is strictly logical and very different from the humans surrounding her. This kind of robot would be expected if you side with Searle. We can imagine that she sees the world quantitatively, always calculating and computing things rather than relying on her feels. Searle would argue that she is simply performing a very complex Chinese Room Argument. Instead of passing back responses to questions she is taking in her surroundings, analyzing everything, then based on her results she carries out the proper response. It is clear that she is syntactic, she has no feelings or beliefs other than what she is programmed to feel or believe. David, on the other hand, is much different from the woman robot. He is built to experience real love, not just the biological processes that result from feeling love. David would support Dennet's argument because we would assume that David's "love program" is just like all the other programs that are running inside of him. The only difference is that for whatever reason this program is the "right kind of program" that allows David to experience real love, beliefs, and feelings. As a result, he acts very different from the other robots. Unlike the other robots being destroyed at Flesh Fair, he pleads for his life. The audience is shocked by this and demands his release because they believe he is a real boy. Similarly, when David travels to Manhattan he finds many copies of himself; he is outraged by this, insisting that he is unique. We realize that David is operating outside of his programmed self; he is letting his beliefs and feelings guide him. This scenario is exactly what Dennet would argue happens when we create the "right kind" of software.