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.
Ashley Graham | 22-Feb-07 at 9:45 pm | Permalink
I was very strongly against the possibility of non-human, but your post did cause me to think. Before I was confused about the definition of “thinking.” I saw “thinking” as the ability to make your own choices. You presented it in a different light. You made me see “thinking” in a different light, specifically, for the the robot cars, their ability to make changes and compensate for mistakes without human guidance. I agree that there is still a vast difference between humans and machines, but you did open my eyes to the different meanings behind “thinking.”
Fernando Londono | 25-Feb-07 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
I was on Turings side for the debate and also went to the screening. The most interesting thing about the screening was like you said the ability of the machine to make a decision “on the fly” to manuver and swerve perfectly to stay on course. The one part that really hit home for me and made me make my final decision as to whether machines are thinking was when they showed the cars driving up the cliffs and they are only given about 3 feet to stay on course or else they would be completely fall hundredes of feet to destruction. But yeah the ability of the cars to drive themselves without human intervention is mind blowing.
Jennifer Crabill | 27-Feb-07 at 8:56 am | Permalink
The “X” factor that machines do not have, haha, seems to be a brain (and the blood running to and from it, a nervous system, organs, etc!). This fact creates a major difference between a computer and a human. Dissecting a computer is absolutely nothing like dissecting a corpse. Obviously, there is a difference. Although a computer can do many more things than a mouse, a mouse will always have something a computer lacks–life. Now, whether this observation plays into our argument over whether machines can think…I think it does affect the argument. Some do not.
Jaren Gaddi | 28-Feb-07 at 6:46 pm | Permalink
For me, I feel that we need to establish if we are trying to decide of machines can think or if machines are ‘intelligent’. If you believe that the use of emotions is required for thought process, then yes, perhaps machines cannot think. But if you simply view thinking as being able to make a choice or decision independent of outside directions, then machines can think - we saw this in Deep Blue and the robot race car.
But that seems like its lacking something doesn’t it? Sure we can program machines to make decisions on their own, but can they comprehend the consequences of their actions? We can program computers and machines to make intelligent decisions, but I still have yet to see how to prove that the machines can understand what effect their actions have on society. Deep Blue can predict what could happen on the chess board, but does it realize the effect it had on the world after it beat the world champion? I think not.
Wes Gotschall | 01-Mar-07 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
My reasoning for believing that emotion isn’t a necessity for thought can be summed up in the example of math. If I see 2+2=? on the chalkboard, there is no emotion involved in my concluding that the answer is 4. If I am asked what color a car is I can answer without any emotion involved. The answer might invoke emotion because I might remember a friend that had a car just like it. This second part is not necessary for thought, but involves memory and emotion. Whether or not Deep Blue knew what the effect on the world would be is arbitrary. I wrote a different comment on a different post about this, but Deep Blue did indeed know the consequences of its actions within the game and played in order to win according to Kasparov’s moves. I fully agree that computers cannot feel emotion even though they can display it in text, but this has nothing to do with the thinking process.
Wes Gotschall | 01-Mar-07 at 4:19 pm | Permalink
In response to Jennifer’s comment, there are things to think about. A computer may not have a heart, brain, and blood but it does have necessities like the human system in order to function. A computer has a fan to prevent it from overheating when it is working hard, much like humans have sweat producing pores. Modern engines cannot operate without a computer to monitor its functions, much like a brain. The engine needs coolant and oil or else certain parts would cease to work, much like a limb or organ would die without blood circulation. The “X” factor that I was referring to was the human ability to represent true emotion and feeling. Just something to think about I guess.
Adam Domanico | 01-Mar-07 at 9:50 pm | Permalink
The thing that I wanted to comment on is the suggestion that the human brain opperates much like a computer. I am the one that presented that idea during the debate and I wish to support it. The human brain is very complex but when you break it down it really only stores and computes information. Machines and computers do the same. Was it not the intention of inventors to make computers do what humans can do but faster and error proof? Some people may argue that machines are inferior because they do not have reations or instincts. However, many reactions and instincts do not even go through the brain but are simply products of the nervous system. Therefore, I believe it to be true that the human brain and computers work very similarly.
Adam Domanico | 01-Mar-07 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
I want to comment on another aspect of this post. At the end the author says that emotions are what computers lack which decreases their understanding. I agree that emotion does separate humans and machines but I do not think that emotion enhances our intelligence and actually causes us humans to act irrationally. If machines do not have emotion then they cannot make rash decisions based on those emotions. Granted without emotion machines can never be truely human-like but is not essential when only talking about intelligence or understanding. As mentioned above I think that machines compute information much like the human brain but computers do not make errors. If emotions were integrated into a machine’s comprehension then I feel that many errors and flawed decisions with follow.
Daniel Estrada | 11-Mar-07 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
Jaren: Thats a good point, but do any of us understand the effects we have on the world? We might have some dim grasp on the consequences of our actions, but no one has a clear view of the big picture.