Philosophy 101D

… in the sense that my semi-proof here follows descartes’ formula of stripping everything away and then putting it back.

Pertaining to the “machines can only do what they’re programmed to do, and never think or feel or anything” debate….

I had a point in the debate the other day that I’ve decided I want to try to expand further. Actually, I don’t remember if we used it in the debate or not, but the Turing side (go team) discussed it prior to the debate anyway. The issue is where to draw the line between thinking and deciding. If I’m standing in a buffet line or ordering off a menu somewhere—both situations hypothetically where it would take the exact same amount of time, effort, or money to get either option being contemplated—and I don’t really have anything in mind but I still have to make a decision, isn’t that thinking? We call virtually anything we do in our heads “thinking,” be it deciding, reasoning, loving, raging, whatever. So if a computer has a choice to make where either option is equally beneficial and equally hazardous, isn’t that exactly analogous to me deciding what to eat? And if it’s exactly analogous, doesn’t that mean machines can think?

Ah, I hear the arguments already, just because machines can think doesn’t mean they can emote. That’s the central point to the “deciding” argument is that there are no emotions involved. But, let’s take a nearly Cartesian leap here (in the sense that the logic may not necessarily follow) and say that there are emotions involved in the decision, but that they’re exactly balanced on either side. At this magical restaurant where I’m doing my example deciding, I could get tacos which I just had yesterday but they still sound good (but won’t be as good since I just had them), or I could get Chinese, which will I haven’t had in ages and also sounds good, but promised to have again with a friend (and if I had it now, might ruin my appetite for it later). This way there are reasonably similar arguments for and against each, and I will weigh them carefully before deciding. This is comparable to the original emotionless argument in the sense that it’s still totally balanced, but this time once a decision has been made, I’ll have to live with the emotional repercussions of that decision (the friend being annoyed with me, perhaps). Therefore, when I’m making the decision I’m taking the emotions into account. Why couldn’t a machine do the same thing? If given the ability to process the ideas of emotions similar to that situation—ideas being the key word here because I sense that my dissenters would say at this stage that a machine couldn’t process “emotions,” but I think it makes sense to say that could handle “ideas,” just as Deep Blue knew the idea of chess and could rationally make a move—it would have the same difficulty (not necessarily with eating, since last I checked even AI machines don’t need to eat). And then, to make an exciting point, if they could weigh the decision as carefully as I could and take the same emotions into account, that would mean they would have to understand emotions. And to understand emotions is to feel them, since no amount of description will allow someone to feel a given emotion. And ta da, in a proof-y step-by-step, mostly logical way, AI could really exist in the thinking-feeling-caring kind of way.

Going over the posts, there seem to be a lot of people still of the opinion that machines can only do what they are programmed to do. Maybe this will help to shake that bias. All the machines in this demonstration were evolved using genetic algorithms, which means that their design was not imposed by a human, but are the result of competition for survival by a number of different designs.

You can read more here:

Virtual Evolved Creatures
Genetic Algorithms (Wikipedia)

Here’s your midterm. Please come to class tomorrow with questions. We will spend most of the time reviewing for the midterm.

Midterm (.html)

Midterm (.doc)

I’ve been thinking about the issue whether machines can think. This is my final viewpoint: Thinking consists of the ability to contemplate about the future, past, or even imaginary. A machine is not going to wonder about its death or whether it can get a job in the future. What a machine can do is compute numbers/symbols, that’s why they such machines computers. If they have the ability to drive solo along hundreds of miles of rugged terrain without a roadmap, they are not really thinking about where they are going. All they do is gather information about their environment, crunch some numbers and adjust to what those numbers said. They are programmed to avoid certain obstacles, and during their trip, they cannot learn from their mistakes. If they keep running into steep banks, they aren’t going to know to avoid them later down the road. They can only adjust their settings after the race is finished and the programmer fixes his mistakes in the way he programmed his machine.

Today’s debate posed some good arguments for both Turing’s and Searle’s beliefs on whether or not machines can think. Turing states that it is impossible to believe that machines can think, but that machines can behave like humans with the proper programming. He believes that thought is what matters when evaluating intelligence.  On the other hand, Searle believes that we as humans have an understanding of things and that makes us machines; having emotions makes us intelligent. 

At first, I was supporting Searle’s belief that we as humans are machines. We have emotions to back up the meaning of everything, and our emotions can change at any second. How could a computer know when to feel nervous or afraid? More specifically, all people are different; being in love could make one person happy but another person angry. It seems too complex to be able to program computers with that much detail. In addition, we have an understanding of our surroundings based on our experiences and emotions, not based on information that someone programmed into us. Humans have a basic instinct and are capable of learning, but computers can’t learn; the programmer feeds the computer everything it needs to know.

Turing’s side argued how once programmed, a computer is indistinguishable from a human, meaning that it can also express emotion. You can program a computer to be angry as well as when to be angry. A computer can be extremely detailed if programmed that way. When calculating a math problem, a computer is more intelligent; the result is computed instantly, whereas, a human’s result takes longer to compute.  Additionally, computers are programmed with all this information, but aren’t humans programmed as well? Yes, we experience things and learn from our experiences, but everything we know comes from someone or something else. So essentially, aren’t humans programmed? So if humans are programmed, computers are programmed, they both can express emotion in different situations, and computers are indistinguishable from humans, then I agree with Turing’s belief that computers can behave like humans and that’s all that matters.

Many people don’t think that machines are capable of thought, that it requires a human brain to achieve the level of sophistication necessary for the processes to evaluate one’s environment and make decisions accordingly.  However, the robots in the Great Robot Race proved otherwise.  To be able to take information in regarding a road from numerous sources like GPS receivers, video cameras, and laser rangefinders; then process the information, and then finally adjust parameters like brakes, throttle, and steering, it takes quite a sophisticated brain.

That brain is a powerful computer, often times several computers, because it has to keep track of all this information and react accordingly many times per second.  As humans, we do the same thing, taking in information from our eyes and ears, and we make small corrections with our hands and feet, to alter our vehicle’s path.  We make many of these corrections on a subconscious level, but they are made nonetheless.

To keep a vehicle on the road definitely requires a level of thinking, because many decisions have to be made all at once, and those decisions have to adapt to changing conditions.  For example:  a set of instructions for a robot whose job is to put a wheel on a car might look like this:

1.        Move arm towards wheels until arm is close enough to pick a wheel up.

2.       Close grip until wheel is securely in grasp.

3.       Move arm and wheel until close enough to car to put wheel on.

4.       Move wheel towards car until it seats onto the axle.

There are only 4 decisions to make, and those decisions are fairly simple – compare a current variable to a variable stored in memory, and react accordingly.  On the other hand, a robot driving the car has so many variables to monitor there just isn’t enough space here to list them all.  It has to keep track of the weather, the speed, the terrain, which way the wheel is turned, whether the throttle or the brakes are being used, which gear the car is in, and whether the car is on the assigned path, just to name a few, and it has to do that while the variables are changing.  Some humans can’t even keep track of all of those variables, and that is proof enough that machines can think – when they can outperform a human at a cognitive task.

During class today it was interesting to see each team’s different arguments. After it was over I was swayed neither way, and I am still unsure as to what I believe. I believe machines are smart, and in many ways I feel that they are smarter than humans. No human can retain information like a machine and be able to process it that quickly. It’s amazing what they can do and it’s amazing that humans have developed the technology to make this possible. In this process though, are humans setting themselves up to be a being of lesser intelligence? Realistically, no. Basically, what we talked about in class was the difference between humans and machines. This difference is huge in a lot of areas, but the question was asked, can machines think for themselves and be intelligent? I believe this is definitely a possibility because of all the work that seems to be going into artificial intelligence. Pretty soon machines will be able to do many of the things that we consider being human because we are programming them to do so, because we are making them super-intelligent machines. They will most likely make quick smart decisions, and they will be very reliable. However, they will never be totally human-like. To be human is something that a machine can never do, and that is why I don’t think that we are machines, if we were we would be pretty horrible machines compared to the ones that are being created. Just look at how our debate went today. There were some valuable points that came from each side, but I don’t know if I think any of them were totally convincing. People stuck to their side, which could be argued to be their instinct, and not too many people’s opinions were changed. Machines make quick decisions and we all know that we do not very often. That was one thing that stuck out to me today during discussion; it was not what we were arguing but rather how we were arguing about the subject. We rely so much on things like instinct, reason, and environment to learn and formulate opinions and learn. Humans are so unique from individual to individual and that’s a good thing I believe. We are what make the world interesting through our human interactions because there is emotion involved, good and bad. As for machines, sure they can function efficiently and they are intelligent because of how we have made them, but they don’t contain the uniqueness that humans possess and I don’t think they ever will, or I hope that they never will.

I think that computers will never be able to really think.  I do agree that computers can perform and function in similar ways that a human being would have to be thinking to do.  So, the question is, how can a machine seem to think but not actually think?   I believe computers are simply a superficial replication of human intelligence.  Computers have been designed to obey definite simple commands, and then it has been provided with programs composed of those simple commands.  Furthermore, the computer has to obey those commands, but it really does not know what is going on.  Without humans that program computer, computers would essentially be useless.  

In addition, it seems to me that computers can compute the most difficult and intricate problems in a matter of seconds, which  would normally take humans days to configure. However, can computers come up with simple stuff, like making small talk or making funny jokes? Of course machines can play an amazing game of chess, because it is made of automatic rules and predetermined options.  The biggest challenge is that computers do not have the common sense like humans have.  To pass the Turing test, you need common sense, and that explains exactly why computers haven’t.  

In addition, how can a computer think when it cannot feel?    Computers do not know the essence of love, anguish or desolation like human beings do.  For example, after a game of chess, humans react a lot differently than computers do.  They actually have feelings on whether they lost or not, either sad, angry or happy.  For example, Deep Blue wasn’t ecstatic or proud that he beat Kasparov in the game of chess.  Emotions are the clear distinction between human beings and computers.  Overall, I will never believe computers will be able to really think.  

I have firm beliefs that machines can in fact think. During the debate today it seemed that the two different sides were not arguing about the same thing and I think that this stems from our having not defined what exactly thinking is. The Oxford American Dictionary defines think as “the ability to judge or consider,” and I find this definition to be a good one because it covers all forms of thinking. Does a machine not judge or consider? The answer is yes; everything it does involves one, or in most cases many, considerations. When a computer outputs something, that output is based on things that it is already programmed to know. The computer knows many things, but it outputs one thing specifically based on the judgment and consideration of all the things that it knows. Humans think in the same way in that we make our decisions based on judgment and consideration of our previous experiences. If humans perform the action of thinking in the same way that computers perform, how can one not consider computers thinking things?

There is only one argument that I at one time felt held any water against the idea that machines think, and that is the argument of Lady Lovelace. Lovelace says that “the analytical engine has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform.” To this one can argue that a machine can be programmed to originate things, but for the sake of proving a point, I will pretend they cannot. To say that machines do not originate anything is not to say that machines do not think. I can think of or about many things without originating anything at all. The fact of the matter is that machines still go through a definite process in making decisions and by this process, they are indeed thinking.

 I admit that I have been biased from the beginning of the AI, cognitive science discussion. Like many people, I have a hard time accepting the fact that there is even a slight possibility that machines can be intelligent just as humans are intelligent. Because of this bias, I almost immediately rejected Turing’s ideas, and immediately sided with Searle. It seemed so obvious to me that there was no way that computers were like us. Searle’s example of the Chinese room seemed to completely solidify my beliefs. It made perfect sense to me that if there is a man who speaks English is on the inside, and he is given Chinese symbols, and an instruction manual in English, he can produce a Chinese response that is indistinguishable from someone who speaks Chinese fluently, without actually understanding Chinese. This analogy helped me to come to the conclusion that of course computers cannot understand anything. But then something was brought up in class that made me think twice. I can’t remember exactly what was said, but it was something to the effect of, if the behavior from the computer/ machine/ turing machine is indistinguishable from that of humans, then who are we to say that it doesn’t understand? The way I thought about this was- if the symbols coming out of the Chinese room are indistinguishable from that of someone fluent in Chinese, and we don’t know whether or not the person in the room know Chinese or not, wouldn’t we be inclined to think that they must know Chinese? Another way to think about it is with a test in most classes. Typically, tests are administered to test our understanding of a certain topic. For many subjects, however, as long as you’ve at least listened in class, you can BS your way through the test. If you’re good at this, you will probably receive a good grade. The teacher assumes you understand the material because you were able to pass the test, but in reality you may know very little to nothing about the subject. In other words, the only person who TRULY knows whether you understand the topic or not is yourself. So maybe, the only one to know whether the computer/ machine actually understands what it is doing is the computer itself. After all, if Searle and everyone has such a hard time defining what understanding is in the first place, how are we to measure understanding? So, this brought out a flaw in my logic, but it didn’t completely put me on Turing’s side either. I think I am still held back by my original biases, and I don’t know if I will ever be able to let those go.      

I do not agree that machines can think. Machines are able to make decisions given the parameters of whatever the designers assign to that machine, but machines are not able to understand the implications of their choices.  I believe that to truely “think” you must be able to understand why you are making these choices and what it means. I do agree that since machines can make choices they do display intelligence.

 Turing argues that machines can perform actions that humans do and that it would be indistinguishable from our own. This is true, but I feel that that does not define machines are thinking. To be able to think you must be able to understand. This understanding is where Turings arguement, at least in my opinion, falls short. Machines do not have the capacity to understand what their choices can cause. It is programmed to do something so it does it.

 Deep Blue was programmed to play chess. The computer did have to think in order to beat Kasparov, but it did not think of the consequences of its actions. What I’m getting at here is that yes a machine can think, but humans can program a machine to do whatever we want it to do. Given certain conditions the machine will makes its choice on the parameters that you give it. You can program the machine to given x conditions to either blow up City A or City B. The machine does not have any regard for the consequences of its action. It will just go with the “best” choice given whatever conditions we program it with.

I didn’t say much today during the debate because, one, there were a lot of people talking at once, and two, I didn’t think I could put it into words the way I wanted on the spot like that. I was on Turing’s side, but I’m not sure I really agree with either of the sides. What got to me was the mention of emotion and meaning put behind words and language. Those arguments had nothing to do with intelligence or the ability to think. I am still not sure if I believe that machines can think nor do I like the claim that the mind is a machine. This is probably due to the fact that I don’t like the idea of a computer being able to think, but it is hard to ignore the similarities between the way humans and computers operate.

The previous paragraph was written after class, before watching the robot videos. Among several videos, the NOVA video really stood out. After watching this video, I am convinced that robots can think and calculate on their own accord. For those of you not at the screening, a team from Stanford designed a robot controlled Volkswagon that navigated itself around a 132 mile desert course in Nevada. Other teams gave the robots sophisticated driving directions that the robots could manipulate only minimally. The Stanford Volkswagon was given only the map of the course. It used a laser guided video system to navigate the course. The designers gave the robot a software based system that would allow it to think, rather than be guided by them. It turned me into a believer that computers can be made to think. Adjustments and decisions were made on the fly by the machine with no guidance from humans. The software the designers supplied the machine with allowed it to have cognitive activity. Without a doubt, this robot was thinking for itself to navigate the course.

With that said, I still strongly believe in a difference between humans and machines. While they both operate in similar ways, there is that X factor that robots do not have. Robots, machines, or computers do not have the capacity for emotion in any sense of the word. Sure they can manipulate the language, but they cannot feel the emotions behind the words. However, the Searle argument in class today relied heavily on this argument. Thought does not require emotion. Yes, this sets humans apart from machines but it does not make them unable to facilitate thought, which was made evident in the video tonight.

I find it interesting that Turing trys to find out if machines have intelligence but yet does not address understanding. Turing uses language as the indicator or measurement for intelligence, which is in turn supposed to signify the capability of unique thought and decision making. I agree that language is a good indicator for intelligence but only because it takes a deep understanding in order to create it in a dialogue. The whole point of understanding in my opinion is to establish the level of intelligence a person (or in this case maybe machine) has. Turing did not address understanding in his imitation test but Searle called him out. Producing or imitating the right outcome can be considered intelligent but I believe that there is more than getting the right answer. For the same reason that Einstein failed fourth grade math and many other great thinkers did not do well in school, getting the right answer does not necessarily indicate a high level of intelligence. So if getting the right answer does not then what determines intelligence? The answer in my opinion is understanding.

So what does this say about the Validity of Turing’s imitation test? Although I agreed with Turning in the debate, I think there are some holes in his methods. Even the simplest of organisms can imitate an action but do not necessarily understand what that action means. As I interpret it, what Turing is arguing is that the means do not matter as long as the same, correct response is expressed. I disagree with this because part of what makes us complex thinkers is that we not only make decision based on certain rules but understand the implications of those decisions. I do not believe that machines/ computers can do this. I agree that machines can express intelligence based on Turing’s test but I do not think that they are capable of complex thoughts like humans because they do not have any understanding. Therefore, I believe that both Turning and Searle are right.

After watching the movie tonight I strongly agree with the point that was brought up at the end of the discussion.  That point is that this movie, in my eyes, provides clear evidence that machines can think and learn and therefore have some sort of intelligence.  Throughout the race through the desert, the machines had to navigate changes in speed, terrain, and sharp corners that were literally life and death situations.  The Stanford team, with their vehicle Stanley, was the most impressive team in my decision which is bolstered by their win in the end.  Stanley was a modified Volkswagen SUV that made all of its decisions on the fly.  Its design was simple and therefore, the most effective.  It started in second place with time penalty behind the first place robot.  In the 102^nd mile it passed the more complex, first placed robot.  Stanley never had a glitch and was even able to “see” the course through cameras and digital mapping equipment.  This ability to learn the course and make its own decisions on how fast to go depending on the terrain and turns was absolutely amazing and completely removes any doubt from my mind that machines can be intelligent.  Yes, they need us to program them, but we need people to teach us how to do things as well.  Also, robots may not have feelings by they do have senses like vision that show some human characteristics.  All of the decisions that they make are their own which gives them, in a way, a mind of their own and, ultimately, intelligence.  Robots are still far behind humans in what sort of actions they can perform but their potential is limitless due to their amazing ability to crunch numbers.  This ability is what can give them artificial senses and contribute to their ability to think.  In closing this ability is just too much for me to overlook and moves me to believe that they can in fact be intelligent beings.

After watching The Great Robot Race video, I am a little more convinced that robots can think and make judgments. Although, it took many people to build these complex robots over a long period of time and with a lot of money, in the end it was up to the robot to figure out how to make it through the maze. These robots were equipped with many different lasers, cameras, and GPS systems that told them how to take the information given (about the terrain) and decide what action to take in order to not get stuck or run into something. After the first obstacles at the California Speedway where none of the robots made it very far, I did not think that the robots would be capable to drive through a desert. The robots were given tunnels, terrain changes, obstacles such as cones and hay. When combined it took a very ‘knowledgeable’ and skilled robot to make it to the end. The whole time I was watching this movie, however, I just kept thinking of the ethical implications that having such advanced robots would do to our society. On one hand, it would be a great thing to replace military vehicles with a robot that does not have a person inside who is in danger. This type of contribution would greatly help the military especially in this time of war. However, there are other ethical questions that we need to think about before replacing other common items with a robot. Technological advancement can make it possible to have a robot do many things that humans do everyday. Driving to work, assembling a car, or doing household chores can all be done with a robot, which I then wonder if it is such a good thing to be doing. People lose jobs when robots can do it faster and for less money which can hurt thousands of people and their families. Also, if a job is done by a non-human, the person then is not responsible for it anymore (for example, a robot vacuum) which could either lead to more productive things in the human or more lazy behaviors. It’s hard for me to be completely pro-robot but as with any new technology, there are always complications that eventually people look past.

 I think intelligence can be artificial to some extent. Banks use artificial intelligence systems to organize operations and make stock investment choices. Work places use robots to do jobs that are too dangerous for humans. Just like Deep Blue, they can be specialized to perform almost any task. Specialized to do it very well in fact. But, like the Chinese Room concluded, true consiousness can’t be achieved by formal logic systems. It’s purely syntax.  Yes, I think robots can most definitely be smarter than humans or mimic us enough so that they are indistinguishable from us like in the Turing Test, but their intelligence will always lack what ours does not: the X factor. Emotion, consciousness, and understanding all add to our intelligence of the world, something a robot can’t have. Consciousness and understanding is part of how we learn, grow, and better ourselves. For a robot to lack this is what makes its intelligence ‘artificial’. It’s fake. It has been programmed to know what it knows. It can’t be programmed to feel or experience emotion. Searle’s arguments are convincing. Machines can output information only from what they have been programmed to know by their maker (s). The only intelligence they have is the intelligence of the people that created it. I do find it interesting, though, that in a way humans have also been programmed to think the way we think. Society condemns certain decisions with punishment and our families and friends influence and shape our morals and life goals. In some places in the world, humans are even more programmed by their government’s or religion’s restrictions. In that way, our intelligence is also programmed.

But the only way a robot will ever be able to have the same intelligence we have will be if we as humans can figure out dualism, or what distinguishes our brains from our minds. Or if they are even able to be separated. Our conscious ability to interpret sensory information and make judgments from our own interaction with the world and not from a program is what ultimately makes our natural intelligence not fake, artificial intelligence. That is why it is called “artificial” because it is technically not real.

With regards to Artificial Intelligence I’m going to have to side with Searle. The Chinese Room argument hit the nail on the head by asserting that computational processes themselves do not imply understanding. Mind-body relations is an extremely complex science as is the inner workings of a computer, but the difference lies in the fact that computers lack consciousness and intentionally.

If I were sitting in the Chinese room decoding the symbols, I wouldn’t understand a word of it, going to show that a computer couldn’t possibly understand them either and that in this situation both computer and human are merely mindless manipulators. Syntax are not sufficient for semantics. Syntax is the contruction of the signs while semantics can be seen as the theoretical study behind the signs. Behind every computer there was a human mind constructing it. To me it seems plausible to believe that computers can take on a mind of their own, meaning that unpredictable/unbelievable circumstances could occur. But that shouldn’t be labeled as intelligence, because the computer is neither actively trying to produce that result nor learning from past experiences, it is simply responding in the way that it was programmed to.

Technological advancements have been increasing at astonishing rates and the end seems no where in sight. Pretty soon we will be able to find a computer to complete most or our daily tasks. But when it boils down to intellectual stimulation the best place that could be found is from another human being. As was mentioned in the first few class periods cell phones, ipods, and especially the internet has taken the place of face to face interactions. The voices of our navigational systems have become our new best friends, and our favorite video games our enemies. I am interested in learning more about how technology has influenced social constructions today.

Although a computer may be able to beat the best chess player in the world, it seems ludicrous to believe that computers can understand the vast context of the work they do each day.

I completely disagree with all articles and statements leaning toward the existence of Artificial Intelligence. I do not believe that there is any possible way in the world for an inanimate object to think. We have not thoroughly discussed the possibilities of animals outside the human race having intelligence, so I do still believe it is possible for them to be intelligent beings. As for machines, there is absolutely no possible way.

A machine is nothing but a compilation of metal, plastic, mother-boards and wires. It is an inanimate object. It is not living, breathing, or experiencing life. It is my opinion that in order to think or have intelligence, something must be alive. A dead person cannot lie in a coffin and create theories or speak. One of the main qualifications to thinking is life. Machines lack this property, and always will. They do not grow in size, their cells do not replicate, they do not eat or produce their own energy. They are most definitely not alive.

Machines do not have the ability to feel. As made apparent by the X-Factor, they do not have emotions at all. There is no way a machine can be happy or friendly. A machine cannot be sad and angry. This is evident in that a person who was upset would not speak to others; when comparing this to a machine, it would mean that a machine would not turn on to interact with others. Machines do not have that capability. The other aspect to feeling is a sense of touch. It is possible for a machine to sense touch, as evident by touch screen computers. It is not possible for a machine to enjoy touch. A machine cannot enjoy being petted like a dog does. It cannot feel pain as a result of touch. If a human touched a red-hot iron pole, they would immediately retract their hand, due to reflexes. If a machine touched the pole, they would not have any of these sensations.

Machines are unable to think on their own accord. All of their responses and actions are because of a person who programmed them to do so. Searle gave the example of a man speaking Chinese due to the aid of a primer. To observers, he looked like he was fluent in the language; he looked like he had intelligence pertaining to Chinese. In reality, he did not understand one bit of Chinese, there was something else making him capable of speaking it. This is how machines are. They have absolutely no real intelligence of their own, all they do is replicate the thoughts of others.

Other factors which influenced my belief in the lack of Artificial Intelligence include my belief in God and the origin of Man. Men think because God gave them the ability to do so. Machines originated from piles of matter which people created. They do not have this gift. Machines also lack the self-perception that humans have. If a machine was programed to believe that it was a horse, it would agree with that. No normal, sane, disease free human would ever believe that he was a horse, even if someone told him so. There is absolutely no way that Artificial Intelligence can be created by humans and replicated in a machine. Machines lack to many humanistic properties of intelligence and thinking for me to ever believe that they exhibit their own intelligence.

     Concerning the issue of whether or not machines can act as humans, I think there are two strong arguments we have discussed and read in assigned essays that support the belief that machines cannot think as humans.  The first is Lady Lovelace’s.  The second is Searle’s claim that computers lack understanding. 

     Turing and Searle both have admittedly written that they do not have evidence to support their ideas, but do have thorough explanations to defend themselves against contrary views. Turing’s objections listed in his essay, such as the “heads in the sand” objection, seem pretty bias in a way that the objections are written to seem almost ridiculous.  The “heads in the sand” objectors, according to Turing, think “the consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful.  Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so (37).”

     The above passage on page 37 makes objectors to Turing seem old-fashioned and behind the times.  Just because I do not believe machines can think as humans do does not mean I am ignorant of today’s technological advancements or that I am not looking forward to a more advanced world.  Turing’s article, as we discussed in class, was not very convincing.  One objection Turing listed that did, however, seem well-balanced and meaningful was his mention of the “Lady Lovelace’s objection.”  In such an objection, supporters believe that machines “never do anything really new (40)”.  This variant of Lady Lovelace’s objection basically means that machines can do what WE program them to do.  Many people, including myself, mentioned this objection in class.  I don’t think machines/computers can ever think like humans because they always must have one requirement—WE must program them.  They don’t just, as another post mentioned, appear out of nowhere, ready to learn our human ways.

     Another argument made by Searle that I believe is important is one we discussed in class: the “X” Factor.  Sure, machines may have the intelligence to solve complicated math problems and learn the complexities of a chessboard, but they will always lack emotion, caring, and more importantly, understanding.  So many movies starring a human-like android have banked at the box office because, why?  They show a machine, programmed by scientists, that acts like a person.  But they, of course, cannot understand or display emotion.  Then at the climax of the movie, the android is shown in a difficult or touching situation and then—can you believe it!—one lone tear slides down his artificial cheek.  But machines can’t cry!  This idea draws viewers in and makes the movie fun to watch because the impossible is always fun to watch; in this case, the impossible is machines being able to understand. 

     The capacity of A.I. is ever-growing and will continue to become more advanced.  Although I believe that these machines, avatars, androids, etc., can be programmed to have great intelligence and are able to do things we never imagined, I couldn’t possibly think that they can have the capacities that humans have.
 

Over this week we have been discussing about how machines could have intelligence similar to us humans.  At first thought it seems insane that anyone could think that this could be possible.  In fact I couldn’t agree more.  As humans we have the utmost intelligence on this planet.  It is possible for us to make our own decisions when we want to, why we want to, and how we want to.  There is nothing that influences us to make a decision, unless you count peer pressure, bribes, etc.  We live freely with no code programmed into us, forcing us how to live. (You could get technical and say what about the people in the prison system?)

Machines and computers, however, are another story.  These pieces of metal are built for a specific purpose.  A problem arises and several individuals, mainly engineers and programmers, collaborate on how to conquer this problem.  A machine is built and then programmed specifically to dominate this obstacle.  This signifies my point in that machines can’t make their own decisions.  They are not intelligent enough to decide what to do.  Humans must physically program this machine to do what it was assigned to do.  Machines have what is called artificial intelligence and is nothing close to human intelligence because it isn’t true/natural intelligence according to human nature.

I have explained my reasoning of why machine artificial intelligence is nothing close to human intelligence.  Others could argue that machines are just as intelligent as humans because they choose the most logical decision out of many just like we do.  Or that our human intelligence is based on learning which is the same thing as a machine being programmed with instructions.  I leave the opposite side open to discussion/argument.