Can computers think independently and do they have “minds”? This question has been the topic of countless, bad movies since the 1950s as well as a number of science fiction novels. We all believe that we have minds. It is something that is taken for granted but what exactly is a mind and are humans the only to possess them? Ever since the invention of the computer, they have been a mystery, even to the smartest of scientists. With the ongoing development of artificial intelligence and high population of computer literate people, the possibility of computers with minds must be re-evaluated.
The initial question that must be answered before tackling the mind/computer problem is how do you define a mind? This is something that philosophers have been trying to answer for hundreds of years, long before the invention of the computer. Renee Descartes supported the concept of ‘dualism’ which is the belief that the mind is a separate non-physical entity associated with the body during its life. On the other hand, behaviorism holds the notion that the mind does not exist but rather patterns of behavior and our pre-dispositions to such behavior. Functionalism is another school of thought that has come to light recently and draws its theory from computer technology. Functionalism believes that the mind is simply a program and the body, its hardware. With all the different theories, none of them have been able to answer the question on whether computers are similar enough to the human brain to have intelligence.
The think the simplest definition for intelligence is the ability to adapt. You can tell a computer to go to a specific IP address but if IBM’s address is no longer www.ibm.com, the computer does not know how to find the new one. More specifically, it can be said that intelligence is the to take into consideration the circumstances of completing a certain task. Alan Turing, a mathematician, sought to answer the question on whether or not computers possess intelligence.
The Turing Test asked people to communicate with something or someone that they could not see. The people engaged in the communication were then asked identify whether they were talking to a machine or a human. If the test subjects thought themselves to be conversing with a human when they were really engaged with a machine, then the computer was thought to have intelligence. This test is inherently flawed.
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:
Behavior is motivated by reasons, whereas physical events have causes. It is impossible to explain feelings and desires with biology and mathematics. Pinker disputes this, because although the mind is a mystery “the mental world can be grounded in the physical world by the concepts of information, computation, and feedback” (Slate, Ch 3). When we decide to sit in a certain chair or to text our best friend, the motivation is difficult to explain. Our memories and our beliefs are essentially just facts that are kept in a database, and our thoughts and plans are just systematic patterns. Our senses connect the mind to everything around us, and by doing so they cause physical energy and information to sync. This is the computational theory of the mind. The theory suggests that our minds are intelligent and rational information processors. If critics would like proof, then artificial intelligence is well on its way to showing the world that matter is capable of doing what the mind can. Computers are capable of so much nowadays; they can distinguish faces, organize data, solve equations, and so on. Those who are critical of this theory may point out that although computers can do simple input and output processing tasks, there still needs to be a human that uses the computer to make judgments, reflect, and even be creative. IBM created the
Computers are well known for their ability to perform computations and follow a list of instructions, but can a computer be a mind? There are varying philosophical theories on what constitutes a mind. Some believe that the mind must be a physical object, and others believe in dualism, or the idea that the mind is separate from the brain. I am a firm believer in dualism, and this is part of the argument that I will use in the favor of Dennett. The materialist view however, would likely not consider Hubert to be a mind. That viewpoint believes that all objects are physical objects, so the mind is a physical part of a human brain, and thus this viewpoint doesn’t consider the mind and body as two separate things, but instead they are both parts of one object. The materialist would likely reject Hubert as a mind, even though circuit boards are a physical object, although even a materialist would likely agree that Yorick being separated from Dennett does not disqualify Yorick as a mind. If one adopts a dualism view and accept the idea that the mind does not have to be connected to a physical object, then one can make sense of Hubert being able to act as the mind of Dennett. The story told to us by Dennett, is that when the switch is flipped on his little box attached to his body, the entity that controls Dennett, changes to the other entity. Since the switches are not labeled, it is never known which entity is
Since antiquity the human mind has been intrigued by artificial intelligence hence, such rapid growth of computer science has raised many issues concerning the isolation of the human mind.
Artificial Intelligence is a term not too widely used in today’s society. With today’s technology we haven’t found a way to enable someone to leave their physical body and let their mind survive within a computer. Could it be possible? Maybe someday, but for now it’s just in theory. The novel by William Gibson, Neuromancer, has touched greatly on the idea of artificial intelligence. He describes it as a world where many things are possible. By simply logging on the computer, it opens up a world we could never comprehend. The possibilities are endless in the world of William Gibson.
The programming of the computer could be set as an equation which with a given input, it can be calculated and then it spit out the answer or output. With this support, a computer is not considered a thinking thing since the computer is given certain programming that would give it the ability to pass a test like the "Turing
The official foundations for "artificial intelligence" were set forth by A. M. Turing, in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" wherein he also coined the term and made predictions about the field. He claimed that by 1960, a computer would be able to formulate and prove complex mathematical theorems, write music and poetry, become world chess champion, and pass his test of artificial intelligences. In his test, a computer is required to carry on a compelling conversation with humans, fooling them into believing they are speaking with another human. All of his predictions require a computer to think and reason in the same manner as a human. Despite 50 years of effort, only the chess championship has come true. By refocusing artificial intelligence research to a more humanlike, cognitive model, the field will create machines that are truly intelligent, capable of meet Turing's goals. Currently, the only "intelligent" programs and computers are not really intelligent at all, but rather they are clever applications of different algorithms lacking expandability and versatility. The human intellect has only been used in limited ways in the artificial intelligence field, however it is the ideal model upon which to base research. Concentrating research on a more cognitive model will allow the artificial intelligence (AI) field to create more intelligent entities and ultimately, once appropriate hardware exists, a true AI.
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.
If a machine passes the test, then it is clear that for many ordinary people it would be a sufficient reason to say that that is a thinking machine. And, in fact, since it is able to conversate with a human and to actually fool him and convince him that the machine is human, this would seem t...
Thinking is such a strange concept to me, I think about writing a paper and I have endless possibilities of what I could write. I find it amazing that we are compared to computers, when our brains are way more powerful than the fastest computer. Our brains adapt constantly and are always relating experiences with past ones; we learn concepts, rules and create relationships. We form concepts in order to generalize, relate things, and help our memory and aid in our reactions to certain environments and situations. Unlike computers we can tell when we need to rest or when we are getting a virus. Brains store information constantly and if it doesn’t make the cut or it isn’t important enough we get rid of it, instead of storing useless information that clogs up our processing. Although our brains are more complex and definitely hold more data, computers and our brains share characteristics. We both have an input of information, the processing stage and then the final output of information. Computers only use algorithms while our brains can use algorithms and heuristics. Even though our brains use more than one form of decision making our brain gives itself obstacles. We often like to delay our decision making but in the end we try to make a decision that best serves us, if not we learn from our mistakes (hopefully) to become a better person and change the next time we are faced with a similar situation.
The position that computers are intelligent is supported by three points: refusing to say that computers are intelligent is prejudice towards computers, being intelligent does not mean that one must be knowledgable in all fields; being intelligent in a single area also proves to display intelligence, and there is no single qualification for intelligence; intelligence is measure...
Most of the day the human mind is taking in information, analyzing it, storing it accordingly, and recalling past knowledge to solve problems logically. This is similar to the life of any computer. Humans gain information through the senses. Computers gain similar information through a video camera, a microphone, a touch pad or screen, and it is even possible for computers to analyze scent and chemicals. Humans also gain information through books, other people, and even computers, all of which computers can access through software, interfacing, and modems. For the past year speech recognition software products have become mainstream(Lyons,176). All of the ways that humans gain information are mimicked by computers. Humans then proceed to analyze and store the information accordingly. This is a computer's main function in today's society. Humans then take all of this information and solve problems logically. This is where things get complex. There are expert systems that can solve complex problems that humans train their whole lives for. In 1997, IBM's Deep Blue defeated the world champion in a game of chess(Karlgaard, p43). Expert systems design buildings, configure airplanes, and diagnose breathing problems. NASA's Deep Space One probe left with software that lets the probe diagnose problems and fix itself(Lyons).
In order to see how artificial intelligence plays a role on today’s society, I believe it is important to dispel any misconceptions about what artificial intelligence is. Artificial intelligence has been defined many different ways, but the commonality between all of them is that artificial intelligence theory and development of computer systems that are able to perform tasks that would normally require a human intelligence such as decision making, visual recognition, or speech recognition. However, human intelligence is a very ambiguous term. I believe there are three main attributes an artificial intelligence system has that makes it representative of human intelligence (Source 1). The first is problem solving, the ability to look ahead several steps in the decision making process and being able to choose the best solution (Source 1). The second is the representation of knowledge (Source 1). While knowledge is usually gained through experience or education, intelligent agents could very well possibly have a different form of knowledge. Access to the internet, the la...
Well as I said we first must define ‘to think’. What does that mean? Webster’s New Compact Dictionary defines ‘think’ as "1. Have a mind. 2. Believe. 3. Employ the mind.". It defines mind as ‘to think’. So does this mean that if you can think does this mean you have a mind? My opinion is that, according to this definition, computers can think. A computer can give you an answer to the question ‘What is 4x13?’, so it can think. What’s that? You say it’s just programmed to do that, if no one programmed it wouldn’t be able to do that. Well how did you know how to answer the question? Your teacher or parent’s or someone taught it to you. So you were programmed, same as the computer was.
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.