Debate Can a Machine Think?

Some stuff to think about

"Can machines think?"

OK.
I think we should define first, what _IS_ a machine.


We can categorize our bodies as electrobiological machines. The cells reproduce due to some inherent program (coded with DNA). Cancer? Corrupted data.

Our brain: An extremely efficient computer. The memory data is stored in cell connections.

How does it work? Dunno

Anyway. Can a machine think?

Or... is the question "can a human-manufactured machine think"?

We have no way to know.

As Descartes said:

Cogito, ergo sum.

I think, THEREFORE I am.

This is nothing but the affirmation of self-consciousness.

Do machines have this self-consciousness? Do machines have a soul?

If they do, we will never know unless they can prove this self-consciousness to us.

 

Re: Some stuff to think about

There are still flaws with Descartes arguments: The Cartesian Circle where he uses God to guarantee clear and distinct ideas even though he used a clear and distinct idea to prove the existence of God.

Descartes also said that the mind cannot be part of the body(the extended world) because we cannot explain how the mind works through mathematical models.. but now we know that the mind works partly through electric charges, action potentials: Where a neuron's cell body becomes positively charged and this charge enters the axon causing neurotransmitters to be passed on to the next neuron... and I'm quite sure that in time we will be able to measure the brain through mathematical models(if we cannot already). I don't think that a computer would only be able to think if God put a soul there I believe in the soul, of course.. but I don't that an object requires the soul to think. Now as for consciousness no psychologist really knows where this comes from, the ability to say "I" and "me" but who is "I" and who is "me"? and who is it that is typing if it isn't me.. @____@ But a computer can say "I" when it is programmed to also.. Which is what throws me off..

 

But the point is: The computer doesn't know the "I" it pronounces is a reference to itself. It can be data that would relate to it, but can the computer think: "Hey, I can think!"?

What I meant when I quoted Descartes in "cogito ergo sum", is that: I know that I think. Therefore, I am alive, I am a living thinking being. What makes me alive? I don't know, but here I am.

Computers cannot have this self-consciousness.

The degree of complexity required JUST to achieve abstraction is enormous. It would require computers to have CPU's as complex as the human brain.

As for self-consciousness....
is it really physics what we're talking about? We know that we think, we know that we have a brain, but do we have physical proof that the brain is related to self-consciousness??

This, gentlemen, goes beyond physics (i.e. metaphysical).

 

How do we even know that the Self is not an illusion?

But self-deception is possible.

Maybe not now, but with sufficient advancement they could.

Well they already beat us in speed and a CPU as powerful as the human mind isn't going to be far off.

So? Keep the debate going on.

 

So, this conscious self could either be the soul or an illusion.. no one knows. Hmmm, but there are some actions that we perform without the direction of the self, such as our heart rate, our breathing, our blood pressure and many others. Bhuddism also teaches that the self is a collection of thoughts, not just a unified thing.. so can a computer say "I think therefore I am?" Well it can think upon it's processes when it uses an antivirus.. But, I'm still unsure if that relates too much ^^;

 

Of course for all we know we're essentially all just like 1 cell in an even larger entity, in one sense or another.

Certainly. I'm sure you know just as well as I that the senses can be decieved. The mind and "heart" (as in emotional, not physical heart) can be self-decieved as well. Consider the parent who despite all evidence to the contrary believes their child is telling 100% perfect truth. Why? Because the parent desires for the child to tell the truth.

Every biased thing one says is another self-deception.

We say we are genuine due to our ability to think and make choices, but so does every program when it hits an If statement. As much as we hate to admit it, we tend to choose either that which will benefit us most down the road, that which will benefit us immeadiately, or that which will benefit others down the road or that which will benefit others immeadiately.

Our choices are in truth quite limited.

How can we be sure that sentience in itself is not an illusion? It could simply be the highest form of animal instinct. Yes, we can use tools to improve things, and language to communicate, but a computer can use codecs, utilities, automated processes and other things to improve things about it (or even other computers) and communicate. Yes, we do illogical things like love, but one could argue that this is due to our biological nature and need to reproduce; and the fact that chemicals do play a rather large role in making us feel certain ways.

How many decisions have we made that are truly our own? How many choices have we made when not under the influence of hormones or other chemicals, the pressure of others, our own concepts of what would be best for the situation, time limits, the physical environment, and past experiences? It can be argued that each decision is actually a reaction based on current "data" and past experiences.

 

Hmmm.. Actually in the Meditations that is exactly why Descartes came to the conclusion that "he thinks, therefore he is". He asked himself whether there could be an evil deceiver(a demon) who set up everything in this world wrong, even mathematics which he knew clearly and distinctly could be wrong: 1 + 1 could actually be 3 but the evil deceiver covered this.

Descartes then realized that he could be deceived on whether he is thinking or not by himself or by this evil deceiver. But it was just that that caused Descartes to realize "hey, I'm thinking that I may not even exist, but who is doing the thinking? Something has to be doing the thinking and that's me! I think therefore I am" - Even if his thoughts were deceiving him.. How could he be deceived? Exactly in the ways you just said: the senses make mistakes and that caused him to doubt the senses. This is exactly why in the first part of the meditations he thought that everything could have just been a perception of his mind and only his mind existed.

 

On a side note this theory was later reborn as the "Brains in an evil scientists lab floating in tanks" theory and The Matrix.

Yes, but this could be yet another illusion. Perhaps we are seperate "applications" running on one "CPU". We're all running at the same time and doing different things but we have the same source for it all.

Granted right now all Im pretty much doing is presenting another mind**** theory and not actually doing much of a debate, but philosophy is fun.

So are you a reflection of me, or am I a reflection of you? Or are we just reflections of a long dead man?

 

It could be anything.. *dies* XD

This is why Turing tried to stay away from those types of philosophical questions or the definition of intelligence, because he could not be fully sure of any of them. So he created the Turing test, if the interviewer thinks that the computer he is talking to is a person then it supposedly is intelligent. Any arguments about his methods?