Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between Human and Machine Intelligence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Difference between Human and Machine Intelligence
One of the most biased and controversial topics in the field of philosophy is that of a statement, and the questioning of "Can a machine know." The problems associating and surrounding this topic are endless, because of all the different biases, reasonable and skeptical thoughts that people contribute to the discussions. On an occasion when this turmoil question comes up an individual might be comparing and thinking that a plain toaster is a machine which is true and yet someone else compares the newest breakthrough in technology such as a robot and they might say that its "knows" what it is doing. However in the end of each discussion there is a doubt, this simple emotion, this chemical imbalance that makes you think of what you just said and it says to you in the back of your mind "is a machine actually conscious", this doubt proves that a machine is not alive and its does not know what it is doing a person might just argue for this topic just for the arguing part of it. From the beginning scientist simplify the emotions into chemical imbalances and say that the machine has them yet still the key thought here was that they have simplified the thought or emotion or what makes a human a human, this is just a form of cheating and lying to oneself that people do to say that they have progressed in technology.
Machines are electronic or mechanical devices or in some cases both which would be considered a technological hybrid composed of dead cells that do not require food or water to function and survive which makes them incapable of feeling pain or happiness. There are many scientific groups that may come up with the newest type of robot and say that it has all the functions that a living individual maybe have, yet the flaw in...
... middle of paper ...
...nic heat receptor and the machine will say ouch when the temperature reaches a certain point and a button will be triggered of the machine to say ouch, that is not a conscious machine its is but a more complex thermometer. For a machine to be alive and know it would have to be able to interpret the information and build on the information it would have to have the ability to learn and understand the information on its own will and not by a programmer that would store the information from a text book in the computer in the shape of a human (a robot such as the Honda one). But most importantly a knowing machine would have to have some sort of independent process of improving itself weather it is to the positive side or the negative one it would simply have to learn how to adapt, feel, and evolve which it will never learn making a machine and unknowing unconscious robot.
Andy Clark strongly argues for the theory that computers have the potential for being intelligent beings in his work “Mindware: Meat Machines.” The support Clark uses to defend his claims states the similar comparison of humans and machines using an array of symbols to perform functions. The main argument of his work can be interpreted as follows:
deep need to probe the mysterious space between human thoughts and what is a machine can
In this paper I will evaluate and present A.M. Turing’s test for machine intelligence and describe how the test works. I will explain how the Turing test is a good way to answer if machines can think. I will also discuss Objection (4) the argument from Consciousness and Objection (6) Lady Lovelace’s Objection and how Turing responded to both of the objections. And lastly, I will give my opinion on about the Turing test and if the test is a good way to answer if a machine can think.
John Searle’s Chinese room argument from his work “Minds, Brains, and Programs” was a thought experiment against the premises of strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). The premises of conclude that something is of the strong AI nature if it can understand and it can explain how human understanding works. I will argue that the Chinese room argument successfully disproves the conclusion of strong AI, however, it does not provide an explanation of what understanding is which becomes problematic when creating a distinction between humans and machines.
For years philosophers have enquired into the nature of the mind, and specifically the mysteries of intelligence and consciousness. (O’Brien 2017) One of these mysteries is how a material object, the brain, can produce thoughts and rational reasoning. The Computational Theory of Mind (CTM) was devised in response to this problem, and suggests that the brain is quite literally a computer, and that thinking is essentially computation. (BOOK) This idea was first theorised by philosopher Hilary Putnam, but was later developed by Jerry Fodor, and continues to be further investigated today as cognitive science, modern computers, and artificial intelligence continue to advance. [REF] Computer processing machines ‘think’ by recognising information
A major falling point of robots and machines when placed in a human’s position is that robots cannot improvise. Robots can only do what they are programmed to do. if Damasio is right, emotions are ‘improvised’ by the human brain even before someone is conscious of what they are feeling. Therefore it is even harder to make machines feel true emotions. An example of this exists in Ray Bradbury’s short story “August 2026.” A completely automated house survives after nuclear warfare has devastated the Earth. Cheerful voices go on announcing schedules and birth dates, the stove prepares steaming hot food right on time, and robotic mice keep the house spotless and free of dust- in eerie contrast to the barren and destroyed city surrounding it. The house lets nothing in, closing its shutters even to birds, but lets in a sick and famished stray dog, which limps into the house and dies. The robotic mice think nothing of the dead dog but a mess that needed cleaning up: “Delicately sensing decay at last, the regiments of mice hummed out as softly as blown gray leaves in an electrical wind. Two-fifteen. The dog was gone. In the cellar, the incinerator glowed suddenly and a whirl of sparks leaped up the chimney.” The house, seeming so cheerful, caring for its attendants, has no compassion or reverence for the dog. The mice were programmed to clean up messes, and nothing beyond. This is why in science
This world of artificial intelligence has the power to produce many questions and theories because we don’t understand something that isn’t possible. “How smart’s an AI, Case? Depends. Some aren’t much smarter than dogs. Pets. Cost a fortune anyway. The real smart ones are as smart as the Turing heat is willing to let ‘em get.” (Page 95) This shows that an artificial intelligence can be programmed to only do certain ...
Asimov’s robots can be described as clumsy, hard-working, cost-efficient, soulless, strong, fast, obedient, human-made, a cleaner better breed, more human than man.
Can or will computers ever think? Well this has been a subject of much debate between even the greatest minds, and yet there is still no answer. First of all I have would like you to answer a question. What is 4x13? Did you have to think to answer that? Yes? Well does that mean that a computer can think because it can answer that question. Well that is what we are going to set to answer and I think yes, depending on your definition of thinking.
The “human sense of self control and purposefulness, is a user illusion,” therefore, if computational systems are comparable to human consciousness, it raises the questions of whether such artificial systems should be treated as humans. (261) Such programs are even capable of learning like children, with time and experience; the programs “[get] better at their jobs with experience,” however, many can argue the difference is self-awareness and that there are many organisms that can conduct such complex behavior but have no sense of identity.
The traditional notion that seeks to compare human minds, with all its intricacies and biochemical functions, to that of artificially programmed digital computers, is self-defeating and it should be discredited in dialogs regarding the theory of artificial intelligence. This traditional notion is akin to comparing, in crude terms, cars and aeroplanes or ice cream and cream cheese. Human mental states are caused by various behaviours of elements in the brain, and these behaviours in are adjudged by the biochemical composition of our brains, which are responsible for our thoughts and functions. When we discuss mental states of systems it is important to distinguish between human brains and that of any natural or artificial organisms which is said to have central processing systems (i.e. brains of chimpanzees, microchips etc.). Although various similarities may exist between those systems in terms of functions and behaviourism, the intrinsic intentionality within those systems differ extensively. Although it may not be possible to prove that whether or not mental states exist at all in systems other than our own, in this paper I will strive to present arguments that a machine that computes and responds to inputs does indeed have a state of mind, but one that does not necessarily result in a form of mentality. This paper will discuss how the states and intentionality of digital computers are different from the states of human brains and yet they are indeed states of a mind resulting from various functions in their central processing systems.
The conditions of the present scenario are as follows: a machine, Siri*, capable of passing the Turing test, is being insulted by a 10 year old boy, whose mother is questioning the appropriateness of punishing him for his behavior. We cannot answer the mother's question without speculating as to what A.M. Turing and John Searle, two 20th century philosophers whose views on artificial intelligence are starkly contrasting, would say about this predicament. Furthermore, we must provide fair and balanced consideration for both theorists’ viewpoints because, ultimately, neither side can be “correct” in this scenario. But before we compare hypothetical opinions, we must establish operant definitions for all parties involved. The characters in this scenario are the mother, referred to as Amy; the 10 year old boy, referred to as the Son; Turing and Searle; and Siri*, a machine that will be referred to as an “it,” to avoid an unintentional bias in favor of or against personhood. Now, to formulate plausible opinions that could emerge from Turing and Searle, we simply need to remember what tenants found their respective schools of thought and apply them logically to the given conditions of this scenario.
Can mankind create intelligence? Can the dream of artificial intelligence ever be realized? Is it possible to formulate intelligence out of inorganic matter? In this paper, I intend to show that artificial intelligence is indeed attainable, that it is within the capacity of human intelligence to fashion intelligence out of non-living materials.
Robots are machines that can do the work of a person and that work automatically or are controlled by a computer (Merriam-Webster, 2014). The Robot Institute of America (circa 1979) defines robots as “a reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks” (Branwyn, G.). The Japanese Industrial Robot Association (JIRA) has classified robots based on the following: manually operated manipulators, sequential manipulators, programmable manipulators, numerically controlled robots, sensate robots, adaptive robots, smart robots, and intelligent mechatronic systems (Branwyn, G.). Robots have been improved over time and have proven to be efficient because the computer is controlling them. The history of robots goes as far back as the Ancient Greeks and Romans for the use of toys, tool...
In case of emergencies, robots could reduce the percentage of fatal damages that occurs through these cases. In fact, humans’ lives are much valuable and precious rather than robots, in which societies could use robots to scarify through the dangerous situation for the sake of rescuing people. In addition, dangerous situations such as firefighting or earthquake require much effort, precision, and scarifying in the evacuation process. Furthermore, a beneficial feature that could help robots to coexist through the risky situations easily and preform the rescuing mission perfectly is that robots do not have feelings or emotions. According to Bruemmer (2006), robots do not have the ability to realize or notify any aspect that people do not programmed them to do. In other words, robots are merely machines that cannot feel or recognize what surrounding them without a sophisticated program done by humans. Therefore, as robots do not have the ability of feeling or knowing they could go through inhumane conditions for saving people. Moreover, robots have various capabilities that make them unique enable them to do heavy duties and bear more serio...