Could a machine think?

rtificial-intelligence research is Aundergoing a revolution To explain how and why, and to put John R. Searle’s argument in perspective, we first need a flashback. By the early 1950’s the old, vague question, Could a machine think? had been replaced by the more approachable question, Could a machine that manipulated physical symbols according to structure-sensitive rules think? This question was an improvement because formal logic and computational theory had seen major developments in the preceding half-century. Theorists had come to appreciate the enormous power of abstract systems of symbols that undergo rulegoverned transformations. If those systems could just be automated, then their abstract computational power, it seemed, would be displayed in a real physical system This insight spawned a well-defined research program with deep theoretical underpinnings. Could a machine think? There were many reasons for saying yes. One of the earliest and deepest reasons lay in