Based on the readings, how would you answer the question, "Can machines think?" Use the objections posed in Turing's essay and Wiener's descriptions about machines to support your opinion.
First off, I would like to quote Turing: “The original question ‘Can machines think?’ is too meaningless to deserve discussion” (55).
Of course, I’m not saying that your question should not be discussed! I would simply like to point out that this is such a vague question that I’m not sure a real answer exists. Plus, I’m fairly clueless about machines and artificial intelligence, so maybe I’m not the right person to be answering this question. Based on the readings however, I have to disagree with both Turing and Wiener: I’m not sure I believe that machines “think”. Of course, if by the word “think” you mean a machine that could process data and spit an answer out to us like a computer or a calculator, then sure, machines think all the time!
But my personal definition of the word “think” means more than simply spitting the correct answer out all of the time: to me, (although Mr. Turing would surely scoff at my reasoning!) thinking has just as much to do with feeling and emotion as it does with knowledge. I thought that Turing’s idea of creating a machine with the mind development of a child and then educating it was interesting (62); if machines can learn, surely they can think, right? But the only way a machine can learn is by a programmer manipulating and inserting new information into it, therefore you really only get out of a machine what you put into it. And this “learning” would be simply knowledge, nothing more, which is at odds with my definition of thinking. I have yet to hear of a programmer who could program emotion into a computer; and when that happens, I will gladly eat my words!
But my definition of the word "think" means much more than simply spitting the correct answer out all of the time: to, thinking has just as much to do with feeling and emotion as it does with knowledge. I thought that Turing's idea of creating a machine with the mind development of a child and then educating it was interesting (62); theoretically then you would eventually have a machine with the analytical capabilities of an adult. You could only educate a machine by programming and manipulating information so it will learn what you want it to do. This learning, however, is simply knowledge, nothing more. I have yet to hear of a programmer who could program his machine to feel emotion; and when that happens, I will eat my words. :)
Just a side note: When we posed the question "Can machines think?" we were hoping that people might discuss the bulk of Turing's essay which is the section entitled "Contrary Views on the Main Question" (begins on page 55) and determine which objection speaks to them the most.
I got the feeling from Turing's passage- not exactly that he believed they could, but something along the lines of- that it would be hard to gather evidence to prove they could not.
In his "Contrary Views on the Main Question" he listed some reasons why people would argue that machines could not think. Personally, I can identify with the theological objection. I believe that thinking requires a soul. Per my definition: a soul is the essence of life. It's what gives a being free-will and the knowledge to learn and grow and change. Even if a computer is programmed with these things, is it not the machine that can think, but the programmer?
Wiener stated in his piece, when talking about programming a machine to point a gun, "how would we make a machine to simulate a gun pointer, and what troubles would one expect with the situation?"
This brought to mind a huge difference between man and machine. A man knows between right and wrong (or should) and can make split second choices depending on his feelings about whatever matter he is presented with. For the most part, I think a machine cannot. And if we eventually could make a machine that could act like a man and have the same notions, who's to say there's a difference between man and machine?
It wasn't my intention to leave more questions than I had answered, but these readings raised some questions for me for which I really had no answer...
The first thing I thought of when I read the question above, was what my definition of thinking is. I definitely agree with Rebecca, in that thinking has a component far beyond answering questions, or responding to directions. All of these tasks are completely mechanical, and are simply immediate responses that are programmed to occur. Everything that a machine has the ability to do would not exist without a man programming it to do so. A machine cannot create its own reason or thought, as a human would by going through life. My definition of thinking involves emotion. In a problem-solving situation, a machine would just acknowledge the issue and respond with what it was programmed to say. A human, however, would analyze the problem, assess the cause, weigh the pros and cons, and use past experiences to formulate what he or she believes is the appropriate response or choice. The first view stuck out to me: “Thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul” (55). Thinking is a human process, it is not mechanical, but rather involves emotions opinions, something a machine cannot be programmed to attain.
Like Rebecca pointed out, your answer to whether or not computers can think strongly depends on what you believe ‘to think’ is. Thinking, in my (and it looks like many other people’s) opinion, has two parts to it. When one is trying to come to a decision, form an opinion, etc., you can think with both your emotions and with logic; it’s just a matter of what you want to use in the end. Computers, obviously, do not have the emotional aspect programmed into them; therefore, I do not believe they think. They can use logical steps to try to reach a conclusion, but in no way is emotion put into their processes.
Throughout Turing’s writing, he refers to a game where a human tries to distinguish the difference between a computer and another person by asking it a series of, as Turing uses, logical questions. But what if Turing proposed asking various questions that were more subjective? Questions where emotion could be inserted to help tell the difference between the two? After a few questions, I feel fairly certain a decision could be reached.
I agree with the point made in the Lady Lovelace section which says “Who can be certain that ‘original work’ that he has done was not simply the growth of the seed planted in him by teaching, or the effect of the following well known general principles?” Everything put into a machine is something that we, as humans, have programmed into its interface. (As I’m writing this more people are posting this same thing…) I did find it interesting that at the end of Turing’s work he mentioned how humans might have computers playing chess one day (this was written in 1950). While it didn’t take long after for them to be able to play chess, it took until 1997 (IBM’s Deep Blue) for one to beat, in match play, the reigning world champion. The only way that computer could be playing chess is by the information that was programmed into it. It’s hard to say if this will ever be possible (a thinking computer), and while I doubt it, I have a hard time writing future technology off.
As with Jen and Rebecca, I agree with Turing's assessment of the question "can machines think?"
Many people, especially computer scientists like me, are familiar with Alan Turing due to what has come to be known as the "Turing Test," which Turing describes in his essay. However, this test does not determine whether a computer can convince a person that it is human. Instead, it measures whether a computer can keep a person from distinguishing it from another human.
A computer system designed to pass this test would likely fail to do anything beyond its scope. This falls in with Lady Lovelace's objection, that a computer "can do whatever we know how to order it to perform" (59). Such a computer cannot actually think for itself or make any determinations beyond the scope of its programming.
I suppose, considering my argument, that I would have to pose a more specific question in order to give an answer: "can computers think today?" Simply, no. To my knowledge, there does not exist a computer that possesses the ability to think on such an abstract level as humans can. Whether there will come a time when computers reach this point is no longer dependent not upon our ability to make computer hardware faster (that will happen on its own). However smart computers may appear to be, they merely follow a a set of instructions many times each second, and have no real method of self-determination.
Rather, true artificial intelligence (a sentient computer) will only be possible once we understand our own sentience. Currently, we do not know how to create sentient computers, therefore by Lady Lovelace's argument, there can be no thinking computers.
Personally, I would say no. I do not believe that machines can think. I believe that all knowledge instilled in machines is from humans. If a machine was able to think, it would have a mind of its own which is impossible for inanimate objects. For a machine to think on its own would be absurd. We humans placed all knowledge into the computer, including numbers. We also programmed the machines to do what they do now, compute problems yet machines do not have the ability to think about what exactly numbers are or even come close to understanding a concept of numbers. As I say this, I question my own thoughts, wondering if my trusty laptop has a mind of its own. I have a feeling that it might read this and possibly delete a few of my important files as means of revenge. Even before I read the essay, I tried to answer the question on my own, “Can machines think?” and I only came up with objections. The first objection coming from my religious views which happens to be the first opposition that Turing presents, “The Theological Objection”. Within the theory, he speaks of the argument being that God gave man an immortal soul but not to a machine (55). As I stated before, man is the one with the mind, therefore man is the one who created the machine. All information that a machine has first came from a human mind. In the second objection, “The ‘Heads in the Sand’ Objection”, Turing points out that humans feel as though they must be superior to the rest of creation. Well, um yes! I would have to say so! Like I had stated earlier, man is the one who created the machine in the first place! For some reason, the other objections seemed valid yet they were not the objections that I felt were most obvious or strongest. Although a machine cannot write a sonnet or a poem nor have emotions, a machine does have the ability to spark thought in humans. A machine has the ability to give a person ideas solely because different ideas were already placed into the machine by another human. A machine cannot feel emotion (again, my laptop might dislike this) but a machine can trigger an emotion in a human. All in all, I do not believe a machine can think because a machine is not a human. Reading these essays made me think of the character Rosie the robot maid from The Jetsons. She was the smartest machine I’d ever seen. She could do anything from vacuuming to complimenting Judy Jetson on her latest hair style. Turing’s essay was written in the early 1950’s and the thought of a thinking machine seemed absurd (to me it still does) but in a Jetson’s world, it is completely understandable. I do not think so, but I am curious, does anyone truly believe that in our future there will be a Jetson’s way of life?
It seems pretty obvious to us at the moment that machines do not think, or at least not on a human level. It seems that the problem with a thinking machine is not that we don't have the technical knowhow to make a thinking machine but that we don't have the knowledge of the brain that such construction requires. There have been robots made that have behavior patterns similar to those of an ant, because the ant's brain is small enough that we can examine it and reproduce it. In order to construct human intelligence, we would need to be able to comprehend how our own mind works, which is likely the problem with the theory of a thinking machine: its likely that we cant understand understanding, at least not perfectly.
I do not believe that machines can think. Computers were constructed through human knowledge. No computer, program or device alone would exist without the human. The latter are not natural things that appear on the earth, in contrast to the human being. Granted that machines can “think” faster and produce more accurate calculations, they are not in fact “thinking.” They are able to produce calculations because humans have programmed them to do so. It is the human knowledge that makes machines possible. Computers can only answer questions with factual answers, such as math equations or yes or no answers. They cannot tell you what to do if you need relationship advice or tell you how an outfit looks on you, for the mere fact that machines don’t have opinions. It can also be stated that there are limits to the computer but none to the human brain. Turing states, “not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt… then we could agree that machine equals brain.” (56) This is because a machine is not thinking and is just relaying information that was programmed into it. More evidence from personal experience comes from word translators. These devices translate word for word certain phrases or sayings in one language, if translated word for word, would not make sense in English. If the device were truly thinking they would know how to translate it to make sense in another language.
"Can machines think?" This question is challenging to answer for most. Although, Turing proved some significant points, I still go with my original opinion that machines do not think. I agree with a few of the objections that he listed. The theological objection that machines lack souls is one that I definitely comply with. It is difficult to accept machines as thinking, human-like objects. I do not think that anything without a soul can truly think and feel, at least not as thoroughly as humans do.
Another objection that I can agree with is the argument from consciousness. Machines cannot feel emotions, such as love, passion, and anger. Without emotion, I do not believe that thinking is an option. Also, machines are man-made objects that are inserted with certain objectives and functions and do not have the capability to feel these emotions. However, Turing does prove a decent point by questioning our beliefs and asking whether or not we truly know if machines are feeling anything. Nobody is within the machine to accesss this information. However, it seems highly unlikely.
Despite feeling questionable about the possibility of machines thinking, Turing does add some interesting thoughts. He, as well as Weiner, believe that machines have the capability to learn. Weiner says that machines can "in a sense, learn." (72) Turing also goes into depth about the possibilities of education and teaching a machine as if it were a child and developing it to think on its own. For me, the liklihood of a machine actually learning is rather miniscule, but I do believe it is definitely a thought provoking subject. -Allison R
When I first came upon Turing's questions of "can computers think?" I had many objections. As his essay continued, I found that many of my objections were addressed. The one that I particularly felt in most agreement with was the Argument from Consciousness. Employing this argument, computers cannot think because they do not have emotions and feelings (56). Emotions and feelings are what drive human thought, and human thought can be changed by a reaction to such feelings. However, a computer's "thinking" cannot be changed by a reaction because computers lack a sense of emotion, as does any other non-human being. Computers do not have a thought process that they go through step by step, so how can they think?
Weiner states that "The new industrial revolution...consists primarily in replacing human judgement and discrimination at low levels by the discrimination of the machine" (71). Though the machine may appear to "think" its simple a low-grade mimic of a quality that only humans possess. Furthermore, this replacement of human judgement can be dangerous when humans actually trust the machine and its ability to think as if it was a human.
I believe that "think" is more of a metaphor for how computers operate.The term "think" puts it in a way humans can understand and relate to instead of actually defining how a computer operates.
Turing and Wiener introduce more similarities between humans and machines than most people would like to think there are. Concerning the main question of whether machines can think or not, many of the above commentators agreed that computers can process information like humans, but most disagreed that this qualified as "thinking." However, between the central processing unit of the computer and our human brains, what difference is there when we "think"? Like Turing points out, in both our cases, we have systems of electric streaming from one point to another to cause the thinking. So then, how is our thinking any different then that of a machine? I believe that the most divisive factor is in argument number four that machines lack consciousness. I believe it is consciousness that lends us the power to link our thoughts to emotions, to create "new" ideas, and to learn. Otherwise, as Wiener points out, machines are even more reliable than humans in their thinking whether we agree that they truly think or not.
The concept of a machine being able to “think” is actually very frightening. Since man physically created computers and machines from much smaller inanimate parts, there is nothing in a machine that can think for itself or make decisions without some sort of human interaction or input. If machines did begin to think for themselves for some reason, it would be a problem unless the machine could be destroyed easily. Many science fiction stories and movies have been based on this concept of artificial intelligence or robots destroying humankind and taking over the planet. This shows that our fear of what we have created might some day develop beyond our control, and it also shows the fantasy behind the concept. I agreed with several of Turing’s arguments, namely “The Theological Objection” and “Arguments from Various Disabilities”. I believe that in order to think, one must have a conscience and the ability to make decisions based on experiences – something that a machine cannot do without being programmed by thinking humans. I think that our souls are what help shape our awareness of right and wrong and what separate a “thinking” object from one that has been instructed what to do under certain circumstances. I also believe that thinking involves a great deal of feeling. Feelings produce thoughts and thoughts produce feelings. Without the ability to feel, love, hate, or hope, machines are not truly able to think. Thinking involves analyzing, remembering, dreaming, speaking, and improving one’s capacity for knowledge by one’s own initiative. Machines cannot learn anything new or take it upon themselves to remember or create on their own. If a machine or computer is said to be “thinking”, perhaps a more accurate word such as “processing” or “working” should be used to describe what is taking place.
I agree with whosoever has said that to answer this question one must first define what it means to think. Personally I feel that thinking involves practices far greater than a mechanical mind could ever hope to achieve. While it is true that machines can perform tasks that require thought of human beings, thought as we know it is more complex. It involves being able to make choices based on past experiences, current circumstances, and various other important factors. To think one must be able to weigh the options of different decisions before coming to one that will satisfy the conditions under which the thought was generated. I don’t believe that machines are capable of such complex processes as these.
In accordance with Lady Lovelace’s objection (59), I feel that machines are incapable of producing anything genuinely original. Machines merely accomplish things humans are technically capable of doing, but at generally accelerated speeds. Machines are programmed to do the things that we tell them how to do. As such, I believe machines are incapable of thought as we know it.
Although with the way technology has developed over the last 100 years, who knows what will be possible in the future.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, thinking is "the action of one's mind to produce thoughts." So, in order to determine if a computer can truly think, it must be first decided whether or not a computer actually has a mind. Technically, I suppose they do. But, saying that the computer's mind is its own is a stretch. A computer's mind is, rather, a network of functions and processes installed by man. A computer would, I believe, have to become self aware and in turn develop its own personality in order for it to be considered owner of its own mind. Besides in Terminator and 2001, I have yet to hear of such a self conscious computer.
The argument against thought in machines with which I connected the most was the argument of consciousness. Although Turing qualifies this view, stating that "the only way by which one could be sure that a machine thinks is to be the macking and to feel oneself thinking...no one would be justified in taking any notice [of a description of one's thoughts]," I still feel that even we, as sapient beings have the ability to distinguish between what can and cannot think (57). Thinking, as I define it in this case, enables more than just objective thought; questions such as the red light, green light question presented on page sixty, and more--problems of magnitude that challenge one's ethic code or way of life (or, if they're rather machine-like, of "processing;" :) ). I am by no means familiar with the realm of computer science, which is an arena in which both of these pieces dabble, but as an individual who values her own thoughts and the development of them, it would come as more than a shock to find that something inanimate would have the same abilities that human beings possess. I share generally the same opinions that my fellow bloggers have--though an thought-provoking question indeed, it is nonetheless difficult to fathom.
I agree with Markleigh's opinion that, at least at this point in time, machines simply do the things that humans have programmed them to do. There are no original "thoughts" or actions coming from the machine.
In addition to Lady Lovelace's Objection, I also agree with Arguments from Various Disabilities, namely telling right from wrong and learning from experience. Because humans can think, we are capable of making decisions, and acting upon them, based on our intuition, what we've learned from past experiences, and what we know to be morally right and wrong. Machines are not yet able to do this, and therefore I would not consider them to be capable of thinking.
Until the human psyche can be fully analyzed and diagrammed, there is no way of determining whether or not a computer can "think". There are current theories that humans don't in fact think, but merely use past experiences and criteria to make decisions,with sentience being a mere side-effect. If this ended up being true, then yes, computers could and do think, as this is how they function today. However, should the mind never be completely unraveled and the idea of an intangible soul remains the only answer, then no, computer can never think because they lack the ability to be spontaneous and self-aware. Either way, as stated in the reading, we have no way of judging whether or not a computer is "thinking" because we have no way of experiencing the thought process ourselves to see if it matches our own.
I agree with (4) The Argument from Consciousness (56).
"This argument is very well expressed in Professor Jefferson's Lister Oration for 1949, from which I quote: 'Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that the machine equals brain--that is, not only write it but know that it had written it. No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its successes, grief when its valves fuse, be warmed by flattery, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants." (56-57)
That sums up how I feel about whether or not machines can think. Turing seems to find the solipsist point of view "extreme" (57). However, I don't know how to contradict that perspective--I feel forced to agree with it, that "the only way to know that a man thinks is to be that particular man." (57).
Here's my understanding of machines. They are programmed to work in certain ways. True, one can program a machine so that if an interrogator says, "A," the machine replies, "B." My problem with this is that machines don't make mistakes. Unless the machine is broken or malfunctioning, a machine does not naturally make mistakes.
On the other hand, human thought is messy. A lot of the time, we don't get things right--we often think the wrong thing. Is a machine truly thinking if it can simply spit out the correct answer each time? Or is an original thought something different, something messy, something rarely free from error?
Machines can think based upon the programs that people have inputted in to them. Just as in Turin's article, he states the reasons why computers will never be human. The data they have inside contains no human emotion or human feelings. Part of how humans act is based on previous knowledge as stated by the author while the computer cannot base anything off of previous experiences. In the movie IRobot, the robots did take over because they thought it was for the betterment of mankind but this would never happen in real life because computers are not able to think of new ideas on their own or control actions of others. Weiner compares some of the ways computers act up to the way a human's body acts in certain situations, this does not mean that the computer is alive, it just is the way things work. The spinning arm where the slowest controls it makes sense that it would because it would slow everything down. It's just the laws of physics. Computers can only think what we tell them, they are unable to adapt on their own. Hailey R
No, no, no, I believe would be my response to this question but, as many of my classmates have already addressed that simple statement I will attempt to delve a little further. I agree with both Turning’s consciousness objection and theological objection. Thoughts are far too complex for any human creature to understand (even though I do hope we debate the issue in class). They are a compound thing filled full of emotion and passion and confusion. All these feelings are too much for even the smartest computer to handle. Additionally, thoughts have to be connected to something more stable than a hard drive, something that can exist of its own accord and being that computers have to be created and will never consist solely of their own wanting, they cannot think. As Weiner mentions, machines can be controlled and advanced and completely redesigned. A human is in a sense “redesigned” by the directions of their thoughts, making us much different and ultimately the true thinkers over machine.
The idea of technology, something that we humans create, becoming so advanced that they match the capabilities of man and could therefore rival us or pose a threat to humankind is an idea that has been fancied by many writers and movie producers. It is a strange and frightening concept, but one that clearly interests the average person, especially considering the success of Isaac Asimov’s writings (which have been adapted into even more successful films—you all have probably seen or at least heard of I, Robot and The Bicentennial Man) (If you have not seen either, go with I, Robot… The Bicentennial Man is just awful). Go to your local Border’s and you will surely be able to find Asimov’s stories under the science fiction section. We all should know what fiction means, but in case you don’t, it’s “the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration”—thank you, Dictionary.com. This means that the general public considers the idea of machines being able to feel—to think, to make decisions on their own and to react voluntarily—to be as real as Star Wars, or any other story that would keep an Asimov novel company under the Sci-Fi section of the library. But unlike the masses, I am leaning towards agreement with Alan Turing. He explains his position quite simply by stating, “I believe that in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme computers with a storage capacity of 10^9 to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning… Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.” I am not capable of pulling a Miss Cleo, and try as I might, a crystal ball will not show me how advanced technology will be in X amount of years or if my children’s, children’s, children will live in a world where humans dating robots is controversial. However, I am also not willing to dismiss the idea entirely as “science fiction.” If you were to go back in time and explain to the people of Salem, Massachusetts that one day they will be able to cook their food by inserting it into a box, pressing a minimum of one button, and then waiting 60 seconds, they would burn you at the stake if only because you are wearing jeans. Granted, a computer can only know and understand as much as its programmer allows it to, but what if somehow a machine is created with an understanding of all the most common human situations and emotions? I just don’t see a reason to rule out the possibility that one day a robot might be able to feel depressed by the death of its owner, even if only because it was programmed to feel that way. The only objection that Turing presents which I can really relate to is the “Heads in the Sand” Objection—I don’t want to dismiss the idea of robots taking over, but it still kind of freaks me out if I think about it too much.
Upon reading the text, I came to some important conclusions that led to whether or not computers can think. The first of which was: Humans are definitely machines, but computers are not humans. Let me explain. I should start by mentioning some things that computer and humans have in common. We both have the ability to record, and retrieve data, we both can compute incredibly complex math problems. Most of this math goes completely unrecognized by most. Whether it be calculating the trajectory of a projectile to make the winning catch, or looking at the proportions of someone's face and body to determine their suitability as a mate. We calculate all the time. I was very surprised when I saw so many people clutched onto the idea the fact that computers did not have emotions as very obvious way of disproving that computer can't think. I think this is completely irrelevant. Why do feel scared when we are in the pitch black and we here a twig snap? Most of the time we get scared because we are about to be in some sort of danger. This emotion is the result of a chemical process that in the make us more disposed to fleeing, increasing the chance that we will survive. A program imbedded in all of us. In my opinion using the statement computers don"t have emotions in this argument is like saying humans are unlike computers because computer communicate the exact data from computer to computer, and the way humans communicate leads to discrepancies, like when someone describes to their friend in great detail a day at the beach, and the internal visualization of the friend is completely different. But it seems I have digressed from the point. To me what really solidifies that fact that computer's can't think is the way people can theorize is very abstract terms. About life and the world around us, at times in completely illogical ways, and with little to no evidence, and given massive amounts of data to the contrary. One great example of this the group of people alive today that believe the world is actually flat, and more wide spread example is the belief of the divine aspects of religion. Completely illogical, but we still believe it. This is something no computer today could do.
The objection that I found most profoud was #4, "The Argument from Consciousness". Computers cannot FEEL. Anger, joy, and sorrow are out of the question, as is falling in love. As for enjoying strawberries and cream, mentioned in part 5, forget it.
Their purpose is to compute. They were created to make life easier for humans, not to become humans. I do NOT believe that computers can "think" in the human sense, but rather, they "think" in the way we programmed them to think. Why would we want to create a machine that could "think" anyway? It seems to me to be a test of power, to see if man can take the position of Creator, to take something that is completely inanimate and then build it into a living, thinking being. I just don't think it's possible.
Besides - how is one to program "love" into a computer? Topics such as love are so complicated that no one on earth fully understands them. How, then, are we to program the computer to feel it, or even simply understand it! This reminds me of Paper Mario Bro's: The Thousand Year Door. At one point, a super-computer falls in love with Princess Peach. Throughout several cut scenes, we witness the computer trying to figure out the "feelings" he was having. Sure, he could list off that he wanted to understand more about her, to find out her background and such, but love isn't a checklist. Anyway, in the end it was Peach who told him he was in love. Even here, it is the human that recognizes it. In any case, the whole scenario is completely ridiculous, for, as pointed out by several of my colleagues, computers can only do what we tell them to do. Computers can have 'sensors', but we do not have any "emotional capacitaors", or something of the sort, that we can just attach to a computer and, voila, it can feel emotions! "Thinking" computers are an interesting idea, but I don't think that they would be a wise idea. Would they have a conscience, and thus be accountable for their actions? Could they be punished? Would they have 'human' rights to go with their 'human intelligence'? Just some questions to chew on.
The objection that speaks to me most from Turing's essay is "Lady Lovelace's Objection," because in it she states that "The Analytical Engine has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform." This is essentially the way I have always rationalized to myself that machines don't actually think. Machines are created by man and as such they can only accomplish what man has ordered them to do. However, I also believe that it is possible in the future that machines will possess the ability to think beyond what man's capacity. For now, the thought of machines actually "thinking" is rather scary and I think that is why so many people have such strong arguments against it. I think that is even why I rationalize why machines can't possibly think, and for me that rationalization comes from the fact that since man makes computers, computers only have the capacity to do what man can do.
The question “can machines think” really depends on how we define the word “think”. If it only means process and give the answer, machine can think without any doubt. However, I believe thinking is much more than that. In Turing’s passage, one of the reasons why people argue machines can’t think is that they define thinking as “a function of man’s immortal soul” (55). They believe God hasn’t given a soul to any animal or machine, therefore they can’t think. (55) I agree with this idea that thinking requires respond, and provide feedbacks emotionally, other than receiving the information, processing and giving out answers mechanically. Moreover, it is human who put their thoughts or program their ideas into the machines to enable machines’ process, but machines are still not able to “think” spontaneously. I also agree that it is hard for a discrete-state machine to imitate the behavior of the nervous system, because “a small error in the information about the size of a neuron may make a large difference to the size of the outgoing impulse”(59). Can machines think? I don’t think so. -Duoduo D
Can machines think? I certainly don't think so. I mean think about it! Is a computer capable of thinking and developing opinons in ways at all similar to how we are thinking and arguing on this very blog? Absolutely not! Although the question isn't exactly a question with a simple yes or no answer, I won't be convinced of a thinking computer until a computer has the ability to think similar to a human's ability to think. Lady Lovelace says it best. A computer can only, "do whatever we know how to order it to perform" (59).
Yes however, I can agree that as technologies continue to develop a digital computer with the ability to think might be created. But first we humans must find a way to do this. Until we find a way of creating a machine with the ability to think, a thinking computer will cease to exsist.
Think, as defined, means various things, such as: “1. use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments; 2. remember: recall knowledge from memory; have a recollection;”
Many of the definitions seem to only focus on reasoning capabilities and recollection. The computer has both of these. Turing does bring up a good point with both the ‘consciousness argument’ and the ‘various disabilities’ argument. However, based on the definition of think, I don’t believe computers need to be able to appreciate strawberries and cream, or fall in love, or have a code of ethics. Therefore, machines may be able to ‘think.’
But can they imitate humans? When we go to his more specific question, it’s difficult to find and answer. It’s true that the computers may only do what we program them to, and they cannot fall in love or like strawberries and cream. But I recall being astounded as I read Turing’s account of how computers may make inferences of their own, the child-machines learning from the teachings. His belief that computers may someday be able to fool the interrogator up to 70% up the time is one that I do not believe to be too far-fetched.
After reading the text and also the responses of my classmates, I realized that many of us think similarly on the topic of whether or not machines can think. While right away I would say that machines dont think, that they merely process information, like many others have said, it is necessary to first define thinking. Some dictionary definitions including: mental forms and processes, or the process of using your mind to consider something carefully. Last I knew, computers did not think of the pros and cons of a situation before making a decision, they did not ever consider something carefully as in comparison to carelessly. Computers think in one way, they cannot change that because they are programmed to do just that. Also, based on the above definition, computers do not have a mind to mentally process thoughts or decisions with. They merely have processes which they follow in every thing they do. These processes are based on what humans program to do, and while humans think to create computers and their processes, this thinking is not then shared with the computer when it is being programmed. While computers are created, cause, and help humankind's thoughts and emotions, they do not on their own think unless it is with the help or guidance of humans. Humans are essentially the brains behind the computer, and while I would say the computer is very useful, it cannot replace a human. If humans decided to add features, or as Turing said, essentially "grow" computers, it would be necessary to figure out what the difference between humans and computers are. At that point, we must question what makes up a human and what makes a computer. I think it would be unintelligent to make computers that similar to humans because while it may be helpful in some situations, it might bring humankind's downfall.
Can machine's think? I believe that in order to answer this question we should follow Turing's example and try to define the words machine and think. However, in a broad sense, I do not believe that machine's can think. They can carry our a process and complete an algorithm, but can they think? I think not. I do believe that a true thought process comes from consciousness. Computers are not alive - they cannot breathe and they have no beating heart. Humans have free will and this separates us from the machines. We choose what we do; we do not follow a set of numbers telling us how to live our lives. Turing would object this reasoning - and he did in Objection 4. However, I don't think that consciousness is a big mystery anymore. We can study it, and it is real.
I interpreted Weiner's view of machines as an extension of man. We chose how we use the machines. They can be used to harm or to help. Ultimately, it is our free will and thinking that will determine how we use this new technology that is constantly being developed.
Like many before me have already stated, this is an extremely difficult question to answer. Turing was right in saying that we must first define the terms "machine" and "think" before we can agree on an answer; however, the problem is in the fact that we cannot come up with concrete definitions of these words, particularly for the word "think." The idea is far too abstract and is influenced by a number of outside sources. I disagree with most of my classmates, though, on the idea that thoughts are based on emotions. In my mind, although emotions often times directly affect thoughts, they don't depend on the other for existence. Thus, even though machines don't possess the privilege of having complex emotions, they can still, and do still, have some form of a thought process that requires cognition. That, to some extent, settles the solipsist position because we cannot possibly argue that machines can't think when clearly we have observed them carrying out commands flawlessly and performing functions based on previous outcomes.
So if we are to determine that machines are capable of thinking, then we must agree with Turing that a machine's processes can "be described as thinking but which is very different from what a man does" (51). Just like a man, a machine can interpret and analyze data, decide on a course of action, and execute this procedure. How a machine arrives at each of these stages and how it proceeds from there, essentially its thought process, is obviously very different from a man's, but the basic progressions are similar, only with different inputs and outputs.
The theological argument is obviously one that will be heavily debated and since neither side has explicit evidence, it is a hard battle to settle. However, let's assume that each human really is granted with a "soul." Said "soul" would be a compilation of all of the thoughts, emotions, actions, etc. of the individual. So just because something has thoughts does not mean that it has to have a "soul." So just because a machine can think doesn't mean that "God has given [it] an immortal soul" (55).
Finally, I agree fervently with Wiener that we must monitor our machines. Scientists are required who are "engaged with the consequences of scientific work" and devoted to social justice (Wardrip-Fruin p. 49). Otherwise, machines could become so advanced that their progress overwhelms that of man, and no one wants "I, Robot" to become a reality.
Can machines think . . . for some reason I feel strangely hesitant to answer that question. First of all, the definition of "think" must be taken into perspective. Entering the word into dictionary.com, I received a couple of definitions:
1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2. to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation
3. to have a certain thing as the subjects of one's thoughts
From (limited) prior knowledge on the subject before reading the papers, I would say that machines can similate the act of thinking through inputs and outputs, but they go nowhere near what the first definition specifies. Yes, they admittedly can make logical and rational connections, and yes, they "remember" things in a way (through storage). But these things are not "thoughts." They are actually numbers and programs that humans have put into them. I doubt that they have a sense of self, nor that they have any actual "thoughts" that are within, and not those things that are inputted into them, or outputted (if those terms are actual words haha).
So, overall, I thought that Turing's arguments weren't bad, but at the same time felt like some of them were contrived. For example, he replied the Argument From Consciousness with a "You can't know what a thing is thinking unless you are that thing (my own paraphrase)." BUT . . . humans created him, and therefore we have the grounds to say with almost certainty that they do not. I did not find his arguments like this convincing at all. Then Wiener didn't really focus on the ability of machines to think much. He just connects it to society, and human control of machines.
So overall, I think that machines can imitate thinking, but can they really? Not yet. And I can't really see how we're going to get them to with our current methods and technology. ---Jennifer Ly Pham
It's so fascinating to view everyone's opinions/views! I like what Cody said regarding the central processing unit of the human vs. machine. It's an interesting argument. I personally believe, with regards to Consciousness argument, thinking of machines is not the same as thinking in humans. Machines lack the emotion and feeling that humans possess. But I do agree that it's hard to specify if machines think, when we cannot truly define our own thinking processes to a tee. Danica Koestner
The question whether machines can think is difficult to decide. Like many in class have stated, Turing goes into explanations from people who do not believe that machines can think. Also, like many others I would like to comment on Turing's points on Conciousness. I think that computers can, to put it bluntly, compute. They can follow a prescriped set of orders/commands, but are not capable of free thought in the situation. From a philosophical perspective, following a perscribed set of orders may not produce the best results.
I also found Wiener's comparisons to human anatomy interesting. A computer's parts can be analogous to the human nervous system, but in terms of making certain connections and learning in a way similar to humans, computers are left lacking.
I would like to add to what i said in class about machines not being required to think like humans. In my opinion, it is more important that the machine doesn't think like a human. making something that thinks like a human is old hat. we've been making things that think like humans for eons. All it takes is two gametes and 9 months. Even if we made a machine that thought like a human, the fact that it was a machine would make it only mildly novel. The real interesting thing to think about is making something think and learn and reproduce and evolve, become smarter and smarter with each generation. Imagine what kind of culture a species of machines would have, what ethics and personalities. we might want to give them the ability to move, definitely the ability to communicate. would they communicate via wi-fi, or would we force them to communicate via sound waves (since we're really bad at speaking in wi-fi)? What if we set up a country for them, let them in the UN? perhaps they would want to explore Space, just as we do. Perhaps, and its a big perhaps, they would evolve an emotion similar to that of love. Would you love a computer? Would you date a computer, marry a computer? Would we give them the legal right to marry? What if they only had one gender? What if they have more than two? would you marry two computers? would a computer marry one human? The implications, from a Humanities standpoint, and from the standpoint of almost every other science, would be incredible. Even the Arts could be revolutionized. Some of the arts and thoughts and ideas that a computer could create are literally inconcieveble, by definition.
I believe that machines do possess the potential to think. My reasoning for this ties in with Turing’s description of a learning machine. I believe it is possible for a machine to learn. A machine, as we currently know it, has x amount of storage. It uses this to remember things. Remembering is not enough to constitute thinking. However, I do not think it would be that big of a leap to say you could build a machine with a program that gives it the capacity to acquire new “knowledge” and implement it to the best of its abilities using whatever information you gave the machine to start with. My description is much like Turing’s learning machine. In my mind the machine would start with x amount of storage, preferably infinite, and a beginning set of commands and references. This would be similar to a child. Not an infant, but a child who has already learned certain rules of acceptable social behavior and logic. The computer could then use its programming to acquire new knowledge and, using its frame of references provided at its “birth”, place the knowledge into a system that is useful and meaningful to it. If it cannot understand what it has learned at that moment then it will merely store it for a time at a later date when perhaps something else it learns allows it to implement the knowledge. I think of this ability to acquire new knowledge and implement it in a logical way as thought. However, this thinking machine that I just described could be very dangerous. Without emotions the most logical course of action is sometimes cruel and unthinkable, precisely because emotions are tied to our survival as individuals and as a species. Perhaps emotions could be simulated as well. After all they are merely chemical reactions that rely on an action as a catalyst. The question would then be how much of our emotional response is instinctive, something we are born with, and how much is learned. Overall I believe that computers would make greater thinkers than humans. As described by Wiener, a computer would react all the better in an emergency situation because it would have all of the emergency response information possessed by those that created it, as well as faster reaction times. Even when factoring in the ability to learn as I described it earlier, which naturally leads to mistakes, a computer would still have the potential to be much better informed than any human as well as better equipped to act quickly.
I think our discussion in class brought up some excellent points. The one fact that was continually repeated was that machines cannot think, necessarily, they can be programmed to respond to certain sets of conditions. Due to this, a computer presumably would never be able to create their own original piece of art or thesis, because all of their concepts of the world or the subject to which they are tasked are based upon what their creators intended.
However, I realize that not every human can write music, or draw a portrait. Indeed, artistic expression is difficult for some humans, let alone a computer. But there is a simpler method to determine their inhumanity. A computer cannot have an opinion. If I were to ask a computer what their opinion was on Obama's healthcare plan, they would not be able to respond. Even if they provided an answer, it would be the answer the creator programmed it with. Thus I don't believe computers can think on their own.
I personally do not think that machines can think. As many have stated, machines and computers act in various ways in which we have programmed to act. Different situations create different results, but they are results that an inventor programmed at one point. A computer which had the capability of original thought would be an extreme threat to society. Think of the fact that the world's few super computers are kept as Top Secret from the majority of society, and the fact that movies can be made about machines that think for themselves (i.e. iRobot or Transformers). Humans fear technology smarter than us, and if it exists, I feel we would try to destroy it. Humans are not ready to be secondary to machine. I believe we are too egocentric of a species to succumb to technology in that fashion. We are proud to create new media, but we also have to be in control of it. Therefore, no I don't think machines can think. I do, however, think that the idea is possible for future inventions and would not be surprised if it was to be introduced in my lifetime.
First off, I would like to quote Turing: “The original question ‘Can machines think?’ is too meaningless to deserve discussion” (55).
ReplyDeleteOf course, I’m not saying that your question should not be discussed! I would simply like to point out that this is such a vague question that I’m not sure a real answer exists. Plus, I’m fairly clueless about machines and artificial intelligence, so maybe I’m not the right person to be answering this question. Based on the readings however, I have to disagree with both Turing and Wiener: I’m not sure I believe that machines “think”. Of course, if by the word “think” you mean a machine that could process data and spit an answer out to us like a computer or a calculator, then sure, machines think all the time!
But my personal definition of the word “think” means more than simply spitting the correct answer out all of the time: to me, (although Mr. Turing would surely scoff at my reasoning!) thinking has just as much to do with feeling and emotion as it does with knowledge. I thought that Turing’s idea of creating a machine with the mind development of a child and then educating it was interesting (62); if machines can learn, surely they can think, right? But the only way a machine can learn is by a programmer manipulating and inserting new information into it, therefore you really only get out of a machine what you put into it. And this “learning” would be simply knowledge, nothing more, which is at odds with my definition of thinking. I have yet to hear of a programmer who could program emotion into a computer; and when that happens, I will gladly eat my words!
But my definition of the word "think" means much more than simply spitting the correct answer out all of the time: to, thinking has just as much to do with feeling and emotion as it does with knowledge. I thought that Turing's idea of creating a machine with the mind development of a child and then educating it was interesting (62); theoretically then you would eventually have a machine with the analytical capabilities of an adult. You could only educate a machine by programming and manipulating information so it will learn what you want it to do. This learning, however, is simply knowledge, nothing more. I have yet to hear of a programmer who could program his machine to feel emotion; and when that happens, I will eat my words. :)
Just a side note: When we posed the question "Can machines think?" we were hoping that people might discuss the bulk of Turing's essay which is the section entitled "Contrary Views on the Main Question" (begins on page 55) and determine which objection speaks to them the most.
ReplyDelete"Can machines think?"
ReplyDeleteI got the feeling from Turing's passage- not exactly that he believed they could, but something along the lines of- that it would be hard to gather evidence to prove they could not.
In his "Contrary Views on the Main Question" he listed some reasons why people would argue that machines could not think. Personally, I can identify with the theological objection. I believe that thinking requires a soul. Per my definition: a soul is the essence of life. It's what gives a being free-will and the knowledge to learn and grow and change. Even if a computer is programmed with these things, is it not the machine that can think, but the programmer?
Wiener stated in his piece, when talking about programming a machine to point a gun, "how would we make a machine to simulate a gun pointer, and what troubles would one expect with the situation?"
This brought to mind a huge difference between man and machine. A man knows between right and wrong (or should) and can make split second choices depending on his feelings about whatever matter he is presented with. For the most part, I think a machine cannot. And if we eventually could make a machine that could act like a man and have the same notions, who's to say there's a difference between man and machine?
It wasn't my intention to leave more questions than I had answered, but these readings raised some questions for me for which I really had no answer...
The first thing I thought of when I read the question above, was what my definition of thinking is. I definitely agree with Rebecca, in that thinking has a component far beyond answering questions, or responding to directions. All of these tasks are completely mechanical, and are simply immediate responses that are programmed to occur. Everything that a machine has the ability to do would not exist without a man programming it to do so. A machine cannot create its own reason or thought, as a human would by going through life.
ReplyDeleteMy definition of thinking involves emotion. In a problem-solving situation, a machine would just acknowledge the issue and respond with what it was programmed to say. A human, however, would analyze the problem, assess the cause, weigh the pros and cons, and use past experiences to formulate what he or she believes is the appropriate response or choice. The first view stuck out to me: “Thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul” (55). Thinking is a human process, it is not mechanical, but rather involves emotions opinions, something a machine cannot be programmed to attain.
Like Rebecca pointed out, your answer to whether or not computers can think strongly depends on what you believe ‘to think’ is. Thinking, in my (and it looks like many other people’s) opinion, has two parts to it. When one is trying to come to a decision, form an opinion, etc., you can think with both your emotions and with logic; it’s just a matter of what you want to use in the end. Computers, obviously, do not have the emotional aspect programmed into them; therefore, I do not believe they think. They can use logical steps to try to reach a conclusion, but in no way is emotion put into their processes.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Turing’s writing, he refers to a game where a human tries to distinguish the difference between a computer and another person by asking it a series of, as Turing uses, logical questions. But what if Turing proposed asking various questions that were more subjective? Questions where emotion could be inserted to help tell the difference between the two? After a few questions, I feel fairly certain a decision could be reached.
I agree with the point made in the Lady Lovelace section which says “Who can be certain that ‘original work’ that he has done was not simply the growth of the seed planted in him by teaching, or the effect of the following well known general principles?” Everything put into a machine is something that we, as humans, have programmed into its interface. (As I’m writing this more people are posting this same thing…) I did find it interesting that at the end of Turing’s work he mentioned how humans might have computers playing chess one day (this was written in 1950). While it didn’t take long after for them to be able to play chess, it took until 1997 (IBM’s Deep Blue) for one to beat, in match play, the reigning world champion. The only way that computer could be playing chess is by the information that was programmed into it. It’s hard to say if this will ever be possible (a thinking computer), and while I doubt it, I have a hard time writing future technology off.
-Nathan
As with Jen and Rebecca, I agree with Turing's assessment of the question "can machines think?"
ReplyDeleteMany people, especially computer scientists like me, are familiar with Alan Turing due to what has come to be known as the "Turing Test," which Turing describes in his essay. However, this test does not determine whether a computer can convince a person that it is human. Instead, it measures whether a computer can keep a person from distinguishing it from another human.
A computer system designed to pass this test would likely fail to do anything beyond its scope. This falls in with Lady Lovelace's objection, that a computer "can do whatever we know how to order it to perform" (59). Such a computer cannot actually think for itself or make any determinations beyond the scope of its programming.
I suppose, considering my argument, that I would have to pose a more specific question in order to give an answer: "can computers think today?" Simply, no. To my knowledge, there does not exist a computer that possesses the ability to think on such an abstract level as humans can. Whether there will come a time when computers reach this point is no longer dependent not upon our ability to make computer hardware faster (that will happen on its own). However smart computers may appear to be, they merely follow a a set of instructions many times each second, and have no real method of self-determination.
Rather, true artificial intelligence (a sentient computer) will only be possible once we understand our own sentience. Currently, we do not know how to create sentient computers, therefore by Lady Lovelace's argument, there can be no thinking computers.
Personally, I would say no. I do not believe that machines can think. I believe that all knowledge instilled in machines is from humans. If a machine was able to think, it would have a mind of its own which is impossible for inanimate objects. For a machine to think on its own would be absurd. We humans placed all knowledge into the computer, including numbers. We also programmed the machines to do what they do now, compute problems yet machines do not have the ability to think about what exactly numbers are or even come close to understanding a concept of numbers. As I say this, I question my own thoughts, wondering if my trusty laptop has a mind of its own. I have a feeling that it might read this and possibly delete a few of my important files as means of revenge.
ReplyDeleteEven before I read the essay, I tried to answer the question on my own, “Can machines think?” and I only came up with objections. The first objection coming from my religious views which happens to be the first opposition that Turing presents, “The Theological Objection”. Within the theory, he speaks of the argument being that God gave man an immortal soul but not to a machine (55). As I stated before, man is the one with the mind, therefore man is the one who created the machine. All information that a machine has first came from a human mind. In the second objection, “The ‘Heads in the Sand’ Objection”, Turing points out that humans feel as though they must be superior to the rest of creation. Well, um yes! I would have to say so! Like I had stated earlier, man is the one who created the machine in the first place! For some reason, the other objections seemed valid yet they were not the objections that I felt were most obvious or strongest.
Although a machine cannot write a sonnet or a poem nor have emotions, a machine does have the ability to spark thought in humans. A machine has the ability to give a person ideas solely because different ideas were already placed into the machine by another human. A machine cannot feel emotion (again, my laptop might dislike this) but a machine can trigger an emotion in a human. All in all, I do not believe a machine can think because a machine is not a human.
Reading these essays made me think of the character Rosie the robot maid from The Jetsons. She was the smartest machine I’d ever seen. She could do anything from vacuuming to complimenting Judy Jetson on her latest hair style. Turing’s essay was written in the early 1950’s and the thought of a thinking machine seemed absurd (to me it still does) but in a Jetson’s world, it is completely understandable. I do not think so, but I am curious, does anyone truly believe that in our future there will be a Jetson’s way of life?
It seems pretty obvious to us at the moment that machines do not think, or at least not on a human level. It seems that the problem with a thinking machine is not that we don't have the technical knowhow to make a thinking machine but that we don't have the knowledge of the brain that such construction requires. There have been robots made that have behavior patterns similar to those of an ant, because the ant's brain is small enough that we can examine it and reproduce it. In order to construct human intelligence, we would need to be able to comprehend how our own mind works, which is likely the problem with the theory of a thinking machine: its likely that we cant understand understanding, at least not perfectly.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that machines can think. Computers were constructed through human knowledge. No computer, program or device alone would exist without the human. The latter are not natural things that appear on the earth, in contrast to the human being. Granted that machines can “think” faster and produce more accurate calculations, they are not in fact “thinking.” They are able to produce calculations because humans have programmed them to do so. It is the human knowledge that makes machines possible.
ReplyDeleteComputers can only answer questions with factual answers, such as math equations or yes or no answers. They cannot tell you what to do if you need relationship advice or tell you how an outfit looks on you, for the mere fact that machines don’t have opinions. It can also be stated that there are limits to the computer but none to the human brain.
Turing states, “not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt… then we could agree that machine equals brain.” (56) This is because a machine is not thinking and is just relaying information that was programmed into it.
More evidence from personal experience comes from word translators. These devices translate word for word certain phrases or sayings in one language, if translated word for word, would not make sense in English. If the device were truly thinking they would know how to translate it to make sense in another language.
"Can machines think?" This question is challenging to answer for most. Although, Turing proved some significant points, I still go with my original opinion that machines do not think. I agree with a few of the objections that he listed. The theological objection that machines lack souls is one that I definitely comply with. It is difficult to accept machines as thinking, human-like objects. I do not think that anything without a soul can truly think and feel, at least not as thoroughly as humans do.
ReplyDeleteAnother objection that I can agree with is the argument from consciousness. Machines cannot feel emotions, such as love, passion, and anger. Without emotion, I do not believe that thinking is an option. Also, machines are man-made objects that are inserted with certain objectives and functions and do not have the capability to feel these emotions. However, Turing does prove a decent point by questioning our beliefs and asking whether or not we truly know if machines are feeling anything. Nobody is within the machine to accesss this information. However, it seems highly unlikely.
Despite feeling questionable about the possibility of machines thinking, Turing does add some interesting thoughts. He, as well as Weiner, believe that machines have the capability to learn. Weiner says that machines can "in a sense, learn." (72) Turing also goes into depth about the possibilities of education and teaching a machine as if it were a child and developing it to think on its own. For me, the liklihood of a machine actually learning is rather miniscule, but I do believe it is definitely a thought provoking subject.
-Allison R
When I first came upon Turing's questions of "can computers think?" I had many objections. As his essay continued, I found that many of my objections were addressed. The one that I particularly felt in most agreement with was the Argument from Consciousness. Employing this argument, computers cannot think because they do not have emotions and feelings (56). Emotions and feelings are what drive human thought, and human thought can be changed by a reaction to such feelings. However, a computer's "thinking" cannot be changed by a reaction because computers lack a sense of emotion, as does any other non-human being. Computers do not have a thought process that they go through step by step, so how can they think?
ReplyDeleteWeiner states that "The new industrial revolution...consists primarily in replacing human judgement and discrimination at low levels by the discrimination of the machine" (71). Though the machine may appear to "think" its simple a low-grade mimic of a quality that only humans possess. Furthermore, this replacement of human judgement can be dangerous when humans actually trust the machine and its ability to think as if it was a human.
I believe that "think" is more of a metaphor for how computers operate.The term "think" puts it in a way humans can understand and relate to instead of actually defining how a computer operates.
Sarah K.
Turing and Wiener introduce more similarities between humans and machines than most people would like to think there are. Concerning the main question of whether machines can think or not, many of the above commentators agreed that computers can process information like humans, but most disagreed that this qualified as "thinking." However, between the central processing unit of the computer and our human brains, what difference is there when we "think"? Like Turing points out, in both our cases, we have systems of electric streaming from one point to another to cause the thinking. So then, how is our thinking any different then that of a machine? I believe that the most divisive factor is in argument number four that machines lack consciousness. I believe it is consciousness that lends us the power to link our thoughts to emotions, to create "new" ideas, and to learn. Otherwise, as Wiener points out, machines are even more reliable than humans in their thinking whether we agree that they truly think or not.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a machine being able to “think” is actually very frightening. Since man physically created computers and machines from much smaller inanimate parts, there is nothing in a machine that can think for itself or make decisions without some sort of human interaction or input. If machines did begin to think for themselves for some reason, it would be a problem unless the machine could be destroyed easily. Many science fiction stories and movies have been based on this concept of artificial intelligence or robots destroying humankind and taking over the planet. This shows that our fear of what we have created might some day develop beyond our control, and it also shows the fantasy behind the concept.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with several of Turing’s arguments, namely “The Theological Objection” and “Arguments from Various Disabilities”. I believe that in order to think, one must have a conscience and the ability to make decisions based on experiences – something that a machine cannot do without being programmed by thinking humans. I think that our souls are what help shape our awareness of right and wrong and what separate a “thinking” object from one that has been instructed what to do under certain circumstances.
I also believe that thinking involves a great deal of feeling. Feelings produce thoughts and thoughts produce feelings. Without the ability to feel, love, hate, or hope, machines are not truly able to think.
Thinking involves analyzing, remembering, dreaming, speaking, and improving one’s capacity for knowledge by one’s own initiative. Machines cannot learn anything new or take it upon themselves to remember or create on their own. If a machine or computer is said to be “thinking”, perhaps a more accurate word such as “processing” or “working” should be used to describe what is taking place.
--Kelly
Can machines think?
ReplyDeleteI agree with whosoever has said that to answer this question one must first define what it means to think. Personally I feel that thinking involves practices far greater than a mechanical mind could ever hope to achieve. While it is true that machines can perform tasks that require thought of human beings, thought as we know it is more complex. It involves being able to make choices based on past experiences, current circumstances, and various other important factors. To think one must be able to weigh the options of different decisions before coming to one that will satisfy the conditions under which the thought was generated. I don’t believe that machines are capable of such complex processes as these.
In accordance with Lady Lovelace’s objection (59), I feel that machines are incapable of producing anything genuinely original. Machines merely accomplish things humans are technically capable of doing, but at generally accelerated speeds. Machines are programmed to do the things that we tell them how to do. As such, I believe machines are incapable of thought as we know it.
Although with the way technology has developed over the last 100 years, who knows what will be possible in the future.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, thinking is "the action of one's mind to produce thoughts." So, in order to determine if a computer can truly think, it must be first decided whether or not a computer actually has a mind. Technically, I suppose they do. But, saying that the computer's mind is its own is a stretch. A computer's mind is, rather, a network of functions and processes installed by man. A computer would, I believe, have to become self aware and in turn develop its own personality in order for it to be considered owner of its own mind. Besides in Terminator and 2001, I have yet to hear of such a self conscious computer.
ReplyDeleteThe argument against thought in machines with which I connected the most was the argument of consciousness. Although Turing qualifies this view, stating that "the only way by which one could be sure that a machine thinks is to be the macking and to feel oneself thinking...no one would be justified in taking any notice [of a description of one's thoughts]," I still feel that even we, as sapient beings have the ability to distinguish between what can and cannot think (57). Thinking, as I define it in this case, enables more than just objective thought; questions such as the red light, green light question presented on page sixty, and more--problems of magnitude that challenge one's ethic code or way of life (or, if they're rather machine-like, of "processing;" :) ). I am by no means familiar with the realm of computer science, which is an arena in which both of these pieces dabble, but as an individual who values her own thoughts and the development of them, it would come as more than a shock to find that something inanimate would have the same abilities that human beings possess. I share generally the same opinions that my fellow bloggers have--though an thought-provoking question indeed, it is nonetheless difficult to fathom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Markleigh's opinion that, at least at this point in time, machines simply do the things that humans have programmed them to do. There are no original "thoughts" or actions coming from the machine.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Lady Lovelace's Objection, I also agree with Arguments from Various Disabilities, namely telling right from wrong and learning from experience. Because humans can think, we are capable of making decisions, and acting upon them, based on our intuition, what we've learned from past experiences, and what we know to be morally right and wrong. Machines are not yet able to do this, and therefore I would not consider them to be capable of thinking.
Until the human psyche can be fully analyzed and diagrammed, there is no way of determining whether or not a computer can "think". There are current theories that humans don't in fact think, but merely use past experiences and criteria to make decisions,with sentience being a mere side-effect. If this ended up being true, then yes, computers could and do think, as this is how they function today. However, should the mind never be completely unraveled and the idea of an intangible soul remains the only answer, then no, computer can never think because they lack the ability to be spontaneous and self-aware. Either way, as stated in the reading, we have no way of judging whether or not a computer is "thinking" because we have no way of experiencing the thought process ourselves to see if it matches our own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with (4) The Argument from Consciousness (56).
ReplyDelete"This argument is very well expressed in Professor Jefferson's Lister Oration for 1949, from which I quote: 'Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that the machine equals brain--that is, not only write it but know that it had written it. No mechanism could feel (and not merely artificially signal, an easy contrivance) pleasure at its successes, grief when its valves fuse, be warmed by flattery, be made miserable by its mistakes, be charmed by sex, be angry or depressed when it cannot get what it wants." (56-57)
That sums up how I feel about whether or not machines can think. Turing seems to find the solipsist point of view "extreme" (57). However, I don't know how to contradict that perspective--I feel forced to agree with it, that "the only way to know that a man thinks is to be that particular man." (57).
Here's my understanding of machines. They are programmed to work in certain ways. True, one can program a machine so that if an interrogator says, "A," the machine replies, "B." My problem with this is that machines don't make mistakes. Unless the machine is broken or malfunctioning, a machine does not naturally make mistakes.
On the other hand, human thought is messy. A lot of the time, we don't get things right--we often think the wrong thing. Is a machine truly thinking if it can simply spit out the correct answer each time? Or is an original thought something different, something messy, something rarely free from error?
Machines can think based upon the programs that people have inputted in to them. Just as in Turin's article, he states the reasons why computers will never be human. The data they have inside contains no human emotion or human feelings. Part of how humans act is based on previous knowledge as stated by the author while the computer cannot base anything off of previous experiences. In the movie IRobot, the robots did take over because they thought it was for the betterment of mankind but this would never happen in real life because computers are not able to think of new ideas on their own or control actions of others. Weiner compares some of the ways computers act up to the way a human's body acts in certain situations, this does not mean that the computer is alive, it just is the way things work. The spinning arm where the slowest controls it makes sense that it would because it would slow everything down. It's just the laws of physics. Computers can only think what we tell them, they are unable to adapt on their own.
ReplyDeleteHailey R
No, no, no, I believe would be my response to this question but, as many of my classmates have already addressed that simple statement I will attempt to delve a little further. I agree with both Turning’s consciousness objection and theological objection. Thoughts are far too complex for any human creature to understand (even though I do hope we debate the issue in class). They are a compound thing filled full of emotion and passion and confusion. All these feelings are too much for even the smartest computer to handle. Additionally, thoughts have to be connected to something more stable than a hard drive, something that can exist of its own accord and being that computers have to be created and will never consist solely of their own wanting, they cannot think. As Weiner mentions, machines can be controlled and advanced and completely redesigned. A human is in a sense “redesigned” by the directions of their thoughts, making us much different and ultimately the true thinkers over machine.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of technology, something that we humans create, becoming so advanced that they match the capabilities of man and could therefore rival us or pose a threat to humankind is an idea that has been fancied by many writers and movie producers. It is a strange and frightening concept, but one that clearly interests the average person, especially considering the success of Isaac Asimov’s writings (which have been adapted into even more successful films—you all have probably seen or at least heard of I, Robot and The Bicentennial Man) (If you have not seen either, go with I, Robot… The Bicentennial Man is just awful). Go to your local Border’s and you will surely be able to find Asimov’s stories under the science fiction section. We all should know what fiction means, but in case you don’t, it’s “the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration”—thank you, Dictionary.com. This means that the general public considers the idea of machines being able to feel—to think, to make decisions on their own and to react voluntarily—to be as real as Star Wars, or any other story that would keep an Asimov novel company under the Sci-Fi section of the library.
ReplyDeleteBut unlike the masses, I am leaning towards agreement with Alan Turing. He explains his position quite simply by stating, “I believe that in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme computers with a storage capacity of 10^9 to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning… Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.”
I am not capable of pulling a Miss Cleo, and try as I might, a crystal ball will not show me how advanced technology will be in X amount of years or if my children’s, children’s, children will live in a world where humans dating robots is controversial. However, I am also not willing to dismiss the idea entirely as “science fiction.” If you were to go back in time and explain to the people of Salem, Massachusetts that one day they will be able to cook their food by inserting it into a box, pressing a minimum of one button, and then waiting 60 seconds, they would burn you at the stake if only because you are wearing jeans. Granted, a computer can only know and understand as much as its programmer allows it to, but what if somehow a machine is created with an understanding of all the most common human situations and emotions? I just don’t see a reason to rule out the possibility that one day a robot might be able to feel depressed by the death of its owner, even if only because it was programmed to feel that way. The only objection that Turing presents which I can really relate to is the “Heads in the Sand” Objection—I don’t want to dismiss the idea of robots taking over, but it still kind of freaks me out if I think about it too much.
Upon reading the text, I came to some important conclusions that led to whether or not computers can think. The first of which was:
ReplyDeleteHumans are definitely machines, but computers are not humans.
Let me explain. I should start by mentioning some things that computer and humans have in common. We both have the ability to record, and retrieve data, we both can compute incredibly complex math problems. Most of this math goes completely unrecognized by most. Whether it be calculating the trajectory of a projectile to make the winning catch, or looking at the proportions of someone's face and body to determine their suitability as a mate. We calculate all the time.
I was very surprised when I saw so many people clutched onto the idea the fact that computers did not have emotions as very obvious way of disproving that computer can't think. I think this is completely irrelevant. Why do feel scared when we are in the pitch black and we here a twig snap? Most of the time we get scared because we are about to be in some sort of danger. This emotion is the result of a chemical process that in the make us more disposed to fleeing, increasing the chance that we will survive. A program imbedded in all of us. In my opinion using the statement computers don"t have emotions in this argument is like saying humans are unlike computers because computer communicate the exact data from computer to computer, and the way humans communicate leads to discrepancies, like when someone describes to their friend in great detail a day at the beach, and the internal visualization of the friend is completely different. But it seems I have digressed from the point.
To me what really solidifies that fact that computer's can't think is the way people can theorize is very abstract terms. About life and the world around us, at times in completely illogical ways, and with little to no evidence, and given massive amounts of data to the contrary. One great example of this the group of people alive today that believe the world is actually flat, and more wide spread example is the belief of the divine aspects of religion. Completely illogical, but we still believe it. This is something no computer today could do.
The objection that I found most profoud was #4, "The Argument from Consciousness". Computers cannot FEEL. Anger, joy, and sorrow are out of the question, as is falling in love. As for enjoying strawberries and cream, mentioned in part 5, forget it.
ReplyDeleteTheir purpose is to compute. They were created to make life easier for humans, not to become humans. I do NOT believe that computers can "think" in the human sense, but rather, they "think" in the way we programmed them to think. Why would we want to create a machine that could "think" anyway? It seems to me to be a test of power, to see if man can take the position of Creator, to take something that is completely inanimate and then build it into a living, thinking being. I just don't think it's possible.
Besides - how is one to program "love" into a computer? Topics such as love are so complicated that no one on earth fully understands them. How, then, are we to program the computer to feel it, or even simply understand it! This reminds me of Paper Mario Bro's: The Thousand Year Door. At one point, a super-computer falls in love with Princess Peach. Throughout several cut scenes, we witness the computer trying to figure out the "feelings" he was having. Sure, he could list off that he wanted to understand more about her, to find out her background and such, but love isn't a checklist. Anyway, in the end it was Peach who told him he was in love. Even here, it is the human that recognizes it. In any case, the whole scenario is completely ridiculous, for, as pointed out by several of my colleagues, computers can only do what we tell them to do. Computers can have 'sensors', but we do not have any "emotional capacitaors", or something of the sort, that we can just attach to a computer and, voila, it can feel emotions!
"Thinking" computers are an interesting idea, but I don't think that they would be a wise idea. Would they have a conscience, and thus be accountable for their actions? Could they be punished? Would they have 'human' rights to go with their 'human intelligence'? Just some questions to chew on.
The objection that speaks to me most from Turing's essay is "Lady Lovelace's Objection," because in it she states that "The Analytical Engine has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform." This is essentially the way I have always rationalized to myself that machines don't actually think. Machines are created by man and as such they can only accomplish what man has ordered them to do. However, I also believe that it is possible in the future that machines will possess the ability to think beyond what man's capacity. For now, the thought of machines actually "thinking" is rather scary and I think that is why so many people have such strong arguments against it. I think that is even why I rationalize why machines can't possibly think, and for me that rationalization comes from the fact that since man makes computers, computers only have the capacity to do what man can do.
ReplyDeleteThe question “can machines think” really depends on how we define the word “think”. If it only means process and give the answer, machine can think without any doubt. However, I believe thinking is much more than that. In Turing’s passage, one of the reasons why people argue machines can’t think is that they define thinking as “a function of man’s immortal soul” (55). They believe God hasn’t given a soul to any animal or machine, therefore they can’t think. (55) I agree with this idea that thinking requires respond, and provide feedbacks emotionally, other than receiving the information, processing and giving out answers mechanically. Moreover, it is human who put their thoughts or program their ideas into the machines to enable machines’ process, but machines are still not able to “think” spontaneously. I also agree that it is hard for a discrete-state machine to imitate the behavior of the nervous system, because “a small error in the information about the size of a neuron may make a large difference to the size of the outgoing impulse”(59). Can machines think? I don’t think so.
ReplyDelete-Duoduo D
Can machines think? I certainly don't think so. I mean think about it! Is a computer capable of thinking and developing opinons in ways at all similar to how we are thinking and arguing on this very blog? Absolutely not! Although the question isn't exactly a question with a simple yes or no answer, I won't be convinced of a thinking computer until a computer has the ability to think similar to a human's ability to think. Lady Lovelace says it best. A computer can only, "do whatever we know how to order it to perform" (59).
ReplyDeleteYes however, I can agree that as technologies continue to develop a digital computer with the ability to think might be created. But first we humans must find a way to do this. Until we find a way of creating a machine with the ability to think, a thinking computer will cease to exsist.
Think, as defined, means various things, such as: “1. use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments; 2. remember: recall knowledge from memory; have a recollection;”
ReplyDeleteMany of the definitions seem to only focus on reasoning capabilities and recollection. The computer has both of these. Turing does bring up a good point with both the ‘consciousness argument’ and the ‘various disabilities’ argument. However, based on the definition of think, I don’t believe computers need to be able to appreciate strawberries and cream, or fall in love, or have a code of ethics. Therefore, machines may be able to ‘think.’
But can they imitate humans? When we go to his more specific question, it’s difficult to find and answer. It’s true that the computers may only do what we program them to, and they cannot fall in love or like strawberries and cream. But I recall being astounded as I read Turing’s account of how computers may make inferences of their own, the child-machines learning from the teachings. His belief that computers may someday be able to fool the interrogator up to 70% up the time is one that I do not believe to be too far-fetched.
After reading the text and also the responses of my classmates, I realized that many of us think similarly on the topic of whether or not machines can think. While right away I would say that machines dont think, that they merely process information, like many others have said, it is necessary to first define thinking.
ReplyDeleteSome dictionary definitions including: mental forms and processes, or the process of using your mind to consider something carefully. Last I knew, computers did not think of the pros and cons of a situation before making a decision, they did not ever consider something carefully as in comparison to carelessly. Computers think in one way, they cannot change that because they are programmed to do just that. Also, based on the above definition, computers do not have a mind to mentally process thoughts or decisions with. They merely have processes which they follow in every thing they do.
These processes are based on what humans program to do, and while humans think to create computers and their processes, this thinking is not then shared with the computer when it is being programmed. While computers are created, cause, and help humankind's thoughts and emotions, they do not on their own think unless it is with the help or guidance of humans. Humans are essentially the brains behind the computer, and while I would say the computer is very useful, it cannot replace a human.
If humans decided to add features, or as Turing said, essentially "grow" computers, it would be necessary to figure out what the difference between humans and computers are. At that point, we must question what makes up a human and what makes a computer. I think it would be unintelligent to make computers that similar to humans because while it may be helpful in some situations, it might bring humankind's downfall.
Can machine's think? I believe that in order to answer this question we should follow Turing's example and try to define the words machine and think. However, in a broad sense, I do not believe that machine's can think. They can carry our a process and complete an algorithm, but can they think? I think not. I do believe that a true thought process comes from consciousness. Computers are not alive - they cannot breathe and they have no beating heart. Humans have free will and this separates us from the machines. We choose what we do; we do not follow a set of numbers telling us how to live our lives. Turing would object this reasoning - and he did in Objection 4. However, I don't think that consciousness is a big mystery anymore. We can study it, and it is real.
ReplyDeleteI interpreted Weiner's view of machines as an extension of man. We chose how we use the machines. They can be used to harm or to help. Ultimately, it is our free will and thinking that will determine how we use this new technology that is constantly being developed.
Like many before me have already stated, this is an extremely difficult question to answer. Turing was right in saying that we must first define the terms "machine" and "think" before we can agree on an answer; however, the problem is in the fact that we cannot come up with concrete definitions of these words, particularly for the word "think." The idea is far too abstract and is influenced by a number of outside sources. I disagree with most of my classmates, though, on the idea that thoughts are based on emotions. In my mind, although emotions often times directly affect thoughts, they don't depend on the other for existence. Thus, even though machines don't possess the privilege of having complex emotions, they can still, and do still, have some form of a thought process that requires cognition. That, to some extent, settles the solipsist position because we cannot possibly argue that machines can't think when clearly we have observed them carrying out commands flawlessly and performing functions based on previous outcomes.
ReplyDeleteSo if we are to determine that machines are capable of thinking, then we must agree with Turing that a machine's processes can "be described as thinking but which is very different from what a man does" (51). Just like a man, a machine can interpret and analyze data, decide on a course of action, and execute this procedure. How a machine arrives at each of these stages and how it proceeds from there, essentially its thought process, is obviously very different from a man's, but the basic progressions are similar, only with different inputs and outputs.
The theological argument is obviously one that will be heavily debated and since neither side has explicit evidence, it is a hard battle to settle. However, let's assume that each human really is granted with a "soul." Said "soul" would be a compilation of all of the thoughts, emotions, actions, etc. of the individual. So just because something has thoughts does not mean that it has to have a "soul." So just because a machine can think doesn't mean that "God has given [it] an immortal soul" (55).
Finally, I agree fervently with Wiener that we must monitor our machines. Scientists are required who are "engaged with the consequences of scientific work" and devoted to social justice (Wardrip-Fruin p. 49). Otherwise, machines could become so advanced that their progress overwhelms that of man, and no one wants "I, Robot" to become a reality.
Can machines think . . . for some reason I feel strangely hesitant to answer that question. First of all, the definition of "think" must be taken into perspective. Entering the word into dictionary.com, I received a couple of definitions:
ReplyDelete1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2. to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation
3. to have a certain thing as the subjects of one's thoughts
From (limited) prior knowledge on the subject before reading the papers, I would say that machines can similate the act of thinking through inputs and outputs, but they go nowhere near what the first definition specifies. Yes, they admittedly can make logical and rational connections, and yes, they "remember" things in a way (through storage). But these things are not "thoughts." They are actually numbers and programs that humans have put into them. I doubt that they have a sense of self, nor that they have any actual "thoughts" that are within, and not those things that are inputted into them, or outputted (if those terms are actual words haha).
So, overall, I thought that Turing's arguments weren't bad, but at the same time felt like some of them were contrived. For example, he replied the Argument From Consciousness with a "You can't know what a thing is thinking unless you are that thing (my own paraphrase)." BUT . . . humans created him, and therefore we have the grounds to say with almost certainty that they do not. I did not find his arguments like this convincing at all. Then Wiener didn't really focus on the ability of machines to think much. He just connects it to society, and human control of machines.
So overall, I think that machines can imitate thinking, but can they really? Not yet. And I can't really see how we're going to get them to with our current methods and technology.
---Jennifer Ly Pham
It's so fascinating to view everyone's opinions/views! I like what Cody said regarding the central processing unit of the human vs. machine. It's an interesting argument. I personally believe, with regards to Consciousness argument, thinking of machines is not the same as thinking in humans. Machines lack the emotion and feeling that humans possess. But I do agree that it's hard to specify if machines think, when we cannot truly define our own thinking processes to a tee.
ReplyDeleteDanica Koestner
The question whether machines can think is difficult to decide. Like many in class have stated, Turing goes into explanations from people who do not believe that machines can think. Also, like many others I would like to comment on Turing's points on Conciousness. I think that computers can, to put it bluntly, compute. They can follow a prescriped set of orders/commands, but are not capable of free thought in the situation. From a philosophical perspective, following a perscribed set of orders may not produce the best results.
ReplyDeleteI also found Wiener's comparisons to human anatomy interesting. A computer's parts can be analogous to the human nervous system, but in terms of making certain connections and learning in a way similar to humans, computers are left lacking.
I would like to add to what i said in class about machines not being required to think like humans. In my opinion, it is more important that the machine doesn't think like a human. making something that thinks like a human is old hat. we've been making things that think like humans for eons. All it takes is two gametes and 9 months. Even if we made a machine that thought like a human, the fact that it was a machine would make it only mildly novel. The real interesting thing to think about is making something think and learn and reproduce and evolve, become smarter and smarter with each generation. Imagine what kind of culture a species of machines would have, what ethics and personalities. we might want to give them the ability to move, definitely the ability to communicate. would they communicate via wi-fi, or would we force them to communicate via sound waves (since we're really bad at speaking in wi-fi)? What if we set up a country for them, let them in the UN? perhaps they would want to explore Space, just as we do. Perhaps, and its a big perhaps, they would evolve an emotion similar to that of love. Would you love a computer? Would you date a computer, marry a computer? Would we give them the legal right to marry? What if they only had one gender? What if they have more than two? would you marry two computers? would a computer marry one human? The implications, from a Humanities standpoint, and from the standpoint of almost every other science, would be incredible. Even the Arts could be revolutionized. Some of the arts and thoughts and ideas that a computer could create are literally inconcieveble, by definition.
ReplyDeleteI believe that machines do possess the potential to think. My reasoning for this ties in with Turing’s description of a learning machine. I believe it is possible for a machine to learn. A machine, as we currently know it, has x amount of storage. It uses this to remember things. Remembering is not enough to constitute thinking. However, I do not think it would be that big of a leap to say you could build a machine with a program that gives it the capacity to acquire new “knowledge” and implement it to the best of its abilities using whatever information you gave the machine to start with.
ReplyDeleteMy description is much like Turing’s learning machine. In my mind the machine would start with x amount of storage, preferably infinite, and a beginning set of commands and references. This would be similar to a child. Not an infant, but a child who has already learned certain rules of acceptable social behavior and logic. The computer could then use its programming to acquire new knowledge and, using its frame of references provided at its “birth”, place the knowledge into a system that is useful and meaningful to it. If it cannot understand what it has learned at that moment then it will merely store it for a time at a later date when perhaps something else it learns allows it to implement the knowledge.
I think of this ability to acquire new knowledge and implement it in a logical way as thought. However, this thinking machine that I just described could be very dangerous. Without emotions the most logical course of action is sometimes cruel and unthinkable, precisely because emotions are tied to our survival as individuals and as a species. Perhaps emotions could be simulated as well. After all they are merely chemical reactions that rely on an action as a catalyst. The question would then be how much of our emotional response is instinctive, something we are born with, and how much is learned.
Overall I believe that computers would make greater thinkers than humans. As described by Wiener, a computer would react all the better in an emergency situation because it would have all of the emergency response information possessed by those that created it, as well as faster reaction times. Even when factoring in the ability to learn as I described it earlier, which naturally leads to mistakes, a computer would still have the potential to be much better informed than any human as well as better equipped to act quickly.
I think our discussion in class brought up some excellent points. The one fact that was continually repeated was that machines cannot think, necessarily, they can be programmed to respond to certain sets of conditions. Due to this, a computer presumably would never be able to create their own original piece of art or thesis, because all of their concepts of the world or the subject to which they are tasked are based upon what their creators intended.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I realize that not every human can write music, or draw a portrait. Indeed, artistic expression is difficult for some humans, let alone a computer. But there is a simpler method to determine their inhumanity. A computer cannot have an opinion. If I were to ask a computer what their opinion was on Obama's healthcare plan, they would not be able to respond. Even if they provided an answer, it would be the answer the creator programmed it with. Thus I don't believe computers can think on their own.
Ok so if anyone is still reading this at all, here's a little comic relief:
ReplyDeletehttp://xkcd.com/329/
I personally do not think that machines can think. As many have stated, machines and computers act in various ways in which we have programmed to act. Different situations create different results, but they are results that an inventor programmed at one point. A computer which had the capability of original thought would be an extreme threat to society. Think of the fact that the world's few super computers are kept as Top Secret from the majority of society, and the fact that movies can be made about machines that think for themselves (i.e. iRobot or Transformers). Humans fear technology smarter than us, and if it exists, I feel we would try to destroy it. Humans are not ready to be secondary to machine. I believe we are too egocentric of a species to succumb to technology in that fashion. We are proud to create new media, but we also have to be in control of it. Therefore, no I don't think machines can think. I do, however, think that the idea is possible for future inventions and would not be surprised if it was to be introduced in my lifetime.
ReplyDelete