My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by AverageBozo »

My furnace’s thermostat receives input, processes that input and then produces output. For all I know, this is evidence that without consciousness it is still possible for inanimate objects to think.

Even though the process simply follows the instructions of a program, my thermostat performs the processing. Mindlessly does not apply, because the processing unit of the thermostat—I.e. the brain—must read the instructions in order to process the input.

If an inanimate object can think without possessing consciousness, then certainly a human can. Even in a coma, a human can react to a painful stimulus whenever the stimulus exceeds a certain threshold.

Perhaps thinking is possible in my thermostat because it is animated rather than inanimate. After all, a rock cannot think, or can it? When the law of gravity is applied to a rock on the edge of a precipice, it receives input and decides to roll.

No, I am not crazy. I just have a lot of time on my hands.
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by AverageBozo »

AverageBozo wrote: July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am My furnace’s thermostat receives input, processes that input and then produces output. For all I know, this is evidence that without consciousness it is still possible for inanimate objects to think.

Even though the process simply follows the instructions of a program, my thermostat performs the processing. Mindlessly does not apply, because the processing unit of the thermostat—I.e. the brain—must read the instructions in order to process the input.

If an inanimate object can think without possessing consciousness, then certainly a human can. Even in a coma, a human can react to a painful stimulus whenever the stimulus exceeds a certain threshold.

Perhaps thinking is possible in my thermostat because it is animated rather than inanimate. After all, a rock cannot think, or can it? When the law of gravity is applied to a rock on the edge of a precipice, it receives input and decides to roll.

No, I am not crazy. I just have a lot of time on my hands.
The input for my thermostat is the ambient temperature around it. It thinks I’m too cold if that temperature drops below a given set point.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by Steve3007 »

Thermostat psychology.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by LuckyR »

AverageBozo wrote: July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am My furnace’s thermostat receives input, processes that input and then produces output. For all I know, this is evidence that without consciousness it is still possible for inanimate objects to think.

Even though the process simply follows the instructions of a program, my thermostat performs the processing. Mindlessly does not apply, because the processing unit of the thermostat—I.e. the brain—must read the instructions in order to process the input.

If an inanimate object can think without possessing consciousness, then certainly a human can. Even in a coma, a human can react to a painful stimulus whenever the stimulus exceeds a certain threshold.

Perhaps thinking is possible in my thermostat because it is animated rather than inanimate. After all, a rock cannot think, or can it? When the law of gravity is applied to a rock on the edge of a precipice, it receives input and decides to roll.

No, I am not crazy. I just have a lot of time on my hands.
This is one of those cases where evaluation of the issue is mostly dependent on the exact definition of the terms in the OP
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by Count Lucanor »

AverageBozo wrote: July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am My furnace’s thermostat receives input, processes that input and then produces output. For all I know, this is evidence that without consciousness it is still possible for inanimate objects to think.
Under that criterion, digestion is the equivalent of thinking. Let's not get into the possible analogies between the outputs.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by Sculptor1 »

AverageBozo wrote: July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am My furnace’s thermostat receives input, processes that input and then produces output. For all I know, this is evidence that without consciousness it is still possible for inanimate objects to think.
No.
Thermostats are simple switches that work with a simply bi-metalic conductive strip. Two materials laminated together expand in heat to different amounts. This causes it to bend, which will make or brake a simple electrical contact, switching the boiler off or on.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by Sculptor1 »

AverageBozo wrote: July 12th, 2021, 11:38 am The input for my thermostat is the ambient temperature around it. It thinks I’m too cold if that temperature drops below a given set point.
This is anthropomorphizing. You are attached the word "thinks" to a think which cannot and does not think.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by Pattern-chaser »

AverageBozo wrote: July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am Even though the process simply follows the instructions of a program, my thermostat performs the processing.
A thermostat operates by using some physical material that responds directly to changes in temperature. No program; no instructions; no processing; no thinking. ... Not even 'thinking' in the sense we mean when we apply it to a computer and its program.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by Consul »

Image

(Source: LeDoux, 2019)

The inanimate information processing of thermostats has nothing to do with cogitation (thought) or cognition in the psychological sense.

QUOTE>
"If we are going to explore cognition from an evolutionary point of view, we need a precise definition of what it is. As used here, cognition will refer to processes that underlie the acquisition of knowledge by creating internal representations of external events and storing them as memories that can later be used in thinking, reminiscing, and musing, and when behaving. Its dependence on internal representations of things or events, in the absence of the external referent of the representation, is what makes cognition different from noncognitive forms of information processing. Given this definition, processes that allow behavioral responses to an immediately present stimulus are not, strictly speaking, under cognitive control. Only responses that depend on internal representations are."

(LeDoux, Joseph. The Deep History of Ourselves: The Four-Billion-Year Story of How We Got Conscious Brains. New York: Viking, 2019. pp. 205-6)
<QUOTE
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: My thermostat thinks I’m too cold

Post by Gertie »

AverageBozo wrote: July 12th, 2021, 11:34 am My furnace’s thermostat receives input, processes that input and then produces output. For all I know, this is evidence that without consciousness it is still possible for inanimate objects to think.

Even though the process simply follows the instructions of a program, my thermostat performs the processing. Mindlessly does not apply, because the processing unit of the thermostat—I.e. the brain—must read the instructions in order to process the input.

If an inanimate object can think without possessing consciousness, then certainly a human can. Even in a coma, a human can react to a painful stimulus whenever the stimulus exceeds a certain threshold.

Perhaps thinking is possible in my thermostat because it is animated rather than inanimate. After all, a rock cannot think, or can it? When the law of gravity is applied to a rock on the edge of a precipice, it receives input and decides to roll.

No, I am not crazy. I just have a lot of time on my hands.
It's possible that any/all objects have some sort of experiential states which we don't recognise, but if the behaviour of the thermostat or whatever can be explained without invoking that, then it's reasonable to assume it's not there, for now.

Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment looks at a non-experiential computer Behaving/Functioning As If it understands what it's doing, without actually doing so, similar to a thermostat.


''Searle's thought experiment begins with this hypothetical premise: suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that they are talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.

The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese? Searle calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak AI".

Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient papers, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.

Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing a behavior which is then interpreted by the user as demonstrating intelligent conversation. However, Searle himself would not be able to understand the conversation. ("I don't speak a word of Chinese," he points out.) Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.

Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the "strong AI" hypothesis is false.''


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021