The question of whether or not a machine has the ability to think depends on the definition of thinking, like Turing stated in his article. If thinking is being able to imitate actions, then perhaps a machine could be a thinking thing if it could be programmed to replicate every action. Yet there is a part of humans that I do not believe could be programmed into a machine.
A human being is born with instincts. Many actions that a human being makes are based on instinct, something that a person does not think about or does unconsciously. While a machine could be programmed to do certain things in certain situations, it would not be possible to program a machine to do something, you can say, with out thinking. How would someone be able to make a program to react without thinking? It would be impossible. For example, the example given in class about how a human being laughs. This is done without thinking it’s just a natural reaction.
A machine could be programmed to do a variety of things in a given situation, and analyze each one, yet the machine could not be programmed to do something based on instinct, or what it feels is right because these are things that come from nature. A person does not choose to react or feel a certain way in certain situations, they are just instinctual things. These are decisions made without reason. Perhaps reason could be programmed into a machine, but how could a machine be programmed to not think or do what feels right because feelings and instincts come from nature and are not programmable. I even agree that a machine could be programmed to distinguished between feelings, and be able to identify them based on human actions and expressions, yet the machine itself would not be feeling. Because of feeling, which comes from instinct, a machine would never be able to completely imitate a human being.
Nicholas Marino | 01-Nov-06 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
I feel the same way about machines. A big argument in class was that machines could cry or laugh by reading human emotions. While this is true, that isn’t the same thing as having the instinct of crying or laughing like humans do as mentioned in this post. While this whole argument is very complicated I still lean towards Searle and less towards Turing.
Daniel Fahey | 01-Nov-06 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
I agree with both of you that there is no way that a machine can ever be truly human. However, do you guys think there’s anything to be said about a machine that acts human and is indistinguishable from a human? People keep talking about robots and that makes me think of Star Wars, but let’s use an easier example. Let’s say you go to Taco Bell and order some food at the drive through. The person asks for your order, you give it, they tell you the price, you drive around. What if that was a machine asking you that, listening, and computing the price? As long as the voice wasn’t one of those robot voices you’d have no clue. Being able to make a machine that’s indistinguishable from a human is a great achievement. I wouldn’t doubt if even a machines appearance would be indistinguishable in the near future. This is what many proponents of robots and machines are trying to get us to realize, I think. Machines can do many of the exact same things humans can do in the exact same way. And, the fact that the machines can be programmed to behave as humans is another reason people may think humans are the same as machines. But I’m fighting for the other side here. I still contend that machines cannot think or BE human.
Daniel Estrada | 06-Nov-06 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Just because laughing is a natural reaction doesn’t mean that there is no processing behind it.
Take, for instance, the fact that you will ‘instinctively’ withdraw your hand from a fire. You do it, as you say, without thinking.
But of course there are lots of sophisticated cognitive processes underlying your reaction. Your nerve endings feel the heat, and convey the message to your brain; your brain in turn interprets these sensations as requiring immediate withdraw, and send signals to the muscles in your arm to do just that. This all goes on unconsciously, but there is lots of processing behind it.
Now, a machine can be programmed to perform the exact same reaction, and possibly with the same kind of reaction times as the human arm. And you might argue that the machine could never be conscious of the action; all the processing is going on unconsciously for the machine. So how is that so different from the human reaction?
Brian Craig | 07-Nov-06 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
Interesting points. As far as humans being like machines with regards to instincts and things of that nature, I agree with people above in saying that machines can not be exactly like humans. Not only because instincts come natural, and I’m not sure machines could be taught feelings strictly through observation of behavior, but also because many times people make unrational decisions based on feelings and instincts that defy reasons. I’m not sure that a computer, a machine based on laws and reasons, could decide when to make an irrational and rational decision based on observation. As far as Dan’s Taco Bell argument, while surely this could happen, I believe in much more complex and ‘human’ situations like personal relationships, a machine could not perfectly replicate a human in some situations. But who knows, what I think is impossible today may be a commodity in the future.
Cristina Del Real | 04-Dec-06 at 7:48 pm | Permalink
It is true that there are processes behind human instincts, like Daniel said about retracting your hand from a fire, yet there are still things that a machine could not imitate. Retracting a hand from a fire is something that is the same for all humans. What about, like mentioned above, personal relationships? These are situations in which different people would react differently, based on personal feelings. A machine could be programmed to have certain reactions in certain situations, which would be the reactions of a certain feeling, yet they would still just be programmed reactions, not true feelings.