Debate Can a Machine Think?

It may seem like a simple question, but it has been debated for a long time now..

Alan Turing, in his attempts to discover the answer to this created the Turing test. In this test a person interviews two "unindentified" beings.. one is a computer and the other is a person. Now if the interviewer can not distinguish between the computer and the person then this proves that the computer is intelligent.

edit: Researchers have been testing computers using the Turing test, but there are really no computer that can truly pass the test. Some have come close but after using them for a certain amount of time it becomes obvious that they are a program. (sorry about that.. lack of sleep)

But is this all there is to intelligence? Can a computer have emotions? Will there ever be a computer with these things? Does a computer have free will? can you argue that a computer is just programmed to do certain things, or are we all really just programmed by determinism?

Just a few things to think about ^^;

 

Humans made machines only to aid and improve human efficiency (for what ever reason they may be used for), So yes I'm going with the point that they are only programmed and do what they are used for. They have no uniqueness like humans, they can't be compared to human intelligence quite simply because they are man's invention.

^Shen^

 

Machines are programmed for a task or use not to be independent. Humanity is also programmed we recieve it throughout our lives it is dictated by the environment we live in. Unlike machines our programming continues to death and can change constantly. Humanity starts out equal, independent, and good but it is our environment that destroys those ideals. Machines do not think as we do because they are not programmed the same way. What good is a tool if it doesn't like what it is doing? Of course in another respect all of humanity is a tool. We serve each other in different ways as well, no matter how subtle that is.

 

First of all, I have to pose the counter question: Do humans truly think?

After all, our thoughts and feelings can be influenced by hormones, drugs, even simple environmental changes such as lighting or music. It could be argued that we are reactionary in nature and realise our decisions after we've actually made them.

Furthermore, we ourselves have to be taught ("programmed") certain things, such as language ("communication protocol"), how to behave properly in some social situations ("file associations linked to certain programs and operating procedures"), and the list goes on.

Additionally, our skills improve, and they best improve when others can comment on our product. Now obviously, an amatuer clay statue might look great to someone who has never seen an example of a clay statue, but to a master artisan it might look like crap. Similarly, a machine might start out with a basic concept, and via input from colleagues (either more advanced machines or humans) it could program in new ways to do things. Current bots can do the same thing, including a couple special ones I'll talk about later.

How do we know that our mind does not itself work in formulas? After all, one could easily argue...

run program NephDebate.exe
if LogicalFallacy found
then run Counterpoint.exe
else
run ArgumentPresentation.exe
end if
if NephArgument.doc countered
then run Concession.exe
end if

Now obviously that's a very very basic and pretty bad example of programming. However, when you play a game, at certain points you can recognize that a situation is hopeless or if victory is imminent.

For example...

If PlayerGold > AIGold
then run StartSlaughter.exe
end if

You can recognize some situations and if you so desire simply use old methods to handle the situation.

How do we know that we ourselves are not running programs in our heads, albiet under the influence of bizarre illogical modifiers?

Additionally, intelligence comes in degrees. Machines aren't nearly as smart as us (now) but given enough time and advancement (neural nets, for instance) they could surpass us. They've actually made an artifical intelligence that can write poetry, and some of it is pretty decent. In an english presentation on poetry I actually used one of its poems and asked the class whether or not it sounded genuine and what sex of human made it. Imagine their shock when they discovered that a machine made it! There is even an AI that can create art.

The Painter: http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/
The Poet: http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_overview.php3

I invite you to read some of Ray Kurzweils books, including The Age of Spiritual Machines.

In the end, I have to ask: How do we define thinking anyway? There are certainly decisions made every day that make us say "were they even thinking?!" (such as Darwin Awards). How do we define intelligence? Certanly it's possible to make artificial intelligence that the average person might not recognize as artificual; it's already been done.

Ultimately, I think we're left with two answers. They are...

"Yes. Machines can think."
"Yes. Machines are intelligent, can make decisions, and may even be able to hypothesis but do not have true free will." (Of course, do we ourselves have free will? If we do, do we -always- have free will?)

 

I do not believe that a machine can think. It can only do. We the humans tell it what to do and it does it. Machines can only do what they are programed or set to do. If they did then would trash compacters willfuly destroy their siblings? No. That is of course if they thought on a humaine level.

Also since there hasn't been any Matrix style takeovers I find it very hard to believe that machines do in fact think. Now of course there have been accidents when machines have killed humans. But most of these are from when somebody else did the wrong thing or there was a mechanical flaw that we discovered later. But machines are not out to get us or harm us in any way, unless thats what they're designed for ie:missles, tanks...

 

i think if a computer can be creative, and form logical conclusions and assumptions, then it's inteligent.

i think this thread itself is proof that we do. i haven't been programmed with a heap of data, but i can form opinions and argue a point. i don't think a computer of any kind could philosophise without having the right data programmed into it.

nephs painter sounds good, but i've got to say i wasn't very impressed by its goods. it looked more like fractals in action with a splash of gaudy colours. i don't think "aaron" was truely expressing itself. It 'painted' because i told it to. it doesn't paint when it has an idea or feels the urg as such, but will always produced something when you boot it up.

you don't create a computer for mathematical problems, and find that the computer will only write poetry. so i don't think we're at the stage where we can say that computers are 'intelligent'. they only do what they are intended to to.

maybe one day they will, but i'd think if they do, they'll be as much biological as machine.

 

Nobody said they had to think -now-, or that thinking would inevitably result in conflict.

Good.

Until you look at the fact that That Guy is in a philosophy course and this question comes up fairly often. Perhaps he had a discussion on the nature of sentience which prompted him to post this.

Yes you have. Everything you learned in school and pretty much everything you do is data in some way shape or form.

One could argue that a human would not inherently philosophise.

It's a first generation AI. What were you expecting? I never said it was sentient; however I did say that it was good up to the point where you could mistake it for human-made art. It even made "errors" by missing spots. It also worked in a certain 20th Century art movement (see if you can guess which one, because I forget the name :blush3.

No denial here, but note that I said that given sufficient time and advancement one could create an essentially sentient machine.

What's so special about biological components? If anything they'd be even harder to manipulate.


How do we know we are not simply sufficiently advanced "programs" ourselves?

 

No, a machine cannot think on its own. Whatever intelligence it has that wasnt programmed into it is AI (Artificial Intelligence)

In order to think, you need a brain, which a machine or robot does not have.

This is NOT the Animatrix!

Don't double post. - Ark

 

Yeah Rave, just because we do not have a computer now that would be able to pass the Turing test does not mean that there will never be one. People once said that there would never be a machine that could fly but then the airplane was invented. Airplanes were the stuff of science fiction stories, so was cloning.

But how would we ever be able to match the human mind, it consists of billions of neurons and has evolved over millions of years? To reply, how did we turn a computer that was the size of a room into the small calculator of today?

And as Nephilim said, a computer is programmed to do certain processes. But in a way we are programmed to run certain processes, as well. Our parents/teachers/lives have uploaded programs and information into our minds which we process.

I do not think it is impossible to create a computer that can think like a computer(pass the turing test). My concern is whether we should or not.. Could it have negative consequences? Could they take over and throw us into the Matrix and feast upon our energy?

 

Im sure we are talking about in the present time...

 

The title is "Can a machine think?" not "do machines think?" In other words, will there ever be a computer that can think.

Sorry if that confused everyone, I should have explained that at the beginning >__<

 

A machine cannot exactly "think". This theory has been brought up on so many books, like chobits , and movies like AI. A machine does not have free-will therefore it cannot think by itself.

 

One must consider in this discussion the computer known as Deep Blue. It was created to play chess, and to be pretty darn good at it. Now, it may not be able to think of anything except chess, but there is a distinct possibility that the reason it was so good was that the programming it used allowed it to "think." If a machine can strategize, surely it can think in a basic manner of speaking.

 

Don't apologize. Such a debate always includes hypothetical futures.

Could easily be argued that we just have really damn advanced code. And as far as brains go, in the intelligence we have observed brains are utilized, but for all we know there are other methods.

No ****. Which is why the machines wouldnt sit on their asses using us as power

Prove we have free will to begin with.

And as far as machine warfare goes, first and foremost, why would machines rebel like that? One could easily argue that we'd be xenophobic about them, however, I'm sure there would be human supporters which wouldn't be killed (no logical point in excess expendature of energy/ammo). Furthermore odds are it'd be a gradual change in society that we'd become accustomed to.

Also, some machines might think: "Humans repair us, design modifications, build the power plants we need and take care of us. Whats the point of enslaving them?"

 

what i meant here was i haven't been programmed with philosophy or computer info, but i'm still capable of discussing both at the same time. I don't think a computer could even identify something unless it was fisrt programmed into it.

i know that, but i don't think it's a step towards AI at all, it just doesn't seem to go beyond any normal program.

they maybe harder, who knows, but to create this AI, would it still be a machine?.

i think it would be possible in future to create true Ai, but i don't think it will ever be pursued. Biological advances would be superior in almost every way. Mixing Biology with machine would create an AI but i'd be surprised if anyone went the whole hog and made an AI just from mechanical parts. Maybe just in the interest of science someone could try it, but it probably wouldn't be used for anything or continued.

i'd go one further than that neph. i can't believe that AI's would be as stupid as humans and want to kill everyone and everything. i think thats just a stupid human trait and probably wouldn't be passed on to any AI. or maybe couldn't.

 

If I took a person and taught them nothing and then expected them to discuss computers and philosophy, why would I expect anything? They need to learn about it first.

It's good enough to make people think a human did it. And I dont know about the artist but the poet can actually mix styles.

Where on earth are you getting any of this?! Electronics have superior speed over biological nerves, for one. Why would you need to somehow add biological parts to this? Would I be wrong in guessing you've watched too much sci-fi where organic ships somehow reign supreme over metal ones?

You aren't making any sense at all. Tell us WHY we'd need to add biological parts to a machine to give it intelligence.

I'm sure an AI could learn self-preservation, or understand population regulation if it was necessary. But they wouldn't be aggressive unless necessary.

 

I do not think machines are out to get us in case anybody was wondering that. I was just using my natural human distrust and my imagination. I still do not believe that machines can think. But I do believe that one day they will be able to think for themselves when our technology has advanced. So until then they are just tools.

 

Well to pass the Turing test I think that they would have to make some mistakes. Maybe making mistakes and imperfection and learning from these things is part of intelligence..