Can a machine think?

[Gabez]

Seems like a good topic to discuss with The Matrix trillogy ending and all that. Apologies if you've already tackled this one though. ;

 

Basically even though we don't possess the technology to do so at the moment, many top scientists would bet their career that it's technically possible to create a robot capable of conscious thought.

 

Think about it - aren't our brains just machines, in a way? A set of electronic pathways sending information from one part to another, much like a microchip might. But is it as simple as that? Even if a machine could fool others into thinking that it's really thinking, isn't it possible that it would all be artificial; that the machine would merely be creating the illusion of real thought rather than actually partaking in it. If so, then what is it about our brains that are so different to an incredibly advanced robot "brain"?

 

Discuss. ;D

[Datheus]

Yes, I think a machine is capable of thinking. There are certain things our minds are unable to reason out just because we lack the evolutionary steps.

 

Likewise, I think if a machine is developed enough, it would be able to think. Machines are already "smarter" than many life forms already.

 

But 1 and 0 thinking is simple... I don't really know if machines would ever be capable of thinking critically... But, like you said: our brains are just electrical pathways.

 

I guess that's why quatum computing is so interesting to me... When they manage to break that barrier, quantum computers will be a huge step towards A.I. (as well as all the problems it shall carry).

[RpTheHotrod]

Thought requires life. The only way we "give" life is through giving birth to children. The spark of life is there...and the being has it's own conscience.

 

As for machines, we can program to supposodly "think" (like AI in games), but it will always come down to 1 and 0

[TK-8252]

A human's brain is very advanced... Because of their ability to think. To come up with new ideas, without help from others. I support the fact that a machine could never be able to think outside of their programming. Humans *CAN* think outside their "programming", which is what makes humans the dominant species on Earth. Animals have no real thought, just their instincts.

[RpTheHotrod]

but you must beware of the paradigm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gabez]

Ah, but can humans really think outside their programming? There are many many things that the human mind simply can't comprehend, and many others that we just don't think about. Perhaps this is because, advanced though our brains our, we're still new-borns on the evolutionary ladder though, and it has nothing to do with "programming". I think for the sake of the argument we can assume that no-one has limited these robots to only think about certain things.

 

I'm personally a little divided on this answer. I understand that in theory a machine could gain consciousness, but in practise I can't help thinking that there must be more to it than that. I guess it really boils down to whether you think we're here by accident, formed out of molecular slime, or whether we have a divine purpose and a divine creator.

 

Whilst we're on the subject, if you think the answer is "yes", then does that mean that the computer you're using at the moment is technically conscious, albeit extremely un-advanced in that area? It's a bizarre concept!

[TK-8252]

Well, inventors, created things which were never taught to them how to create. So they thought outside of what they were taught. Humans have the ability to create new ideas. Animals, and machines will probably never have his ability.

[El Sitherino]

If you think about it our cultures provide us with our own programming. Say we are raised in a non canablistic culture, we see a culture that partakes in canabalism, we have a hard time understanding it because it's basically out of our cultural "programming". Think about how in terminator Arnold didn't understand the value of life, some people are born similiar to that (no knowledge of life's value). People will just see life as a comodity.(I think that's the right word)

 

If noone understood a thing I just said contact me later, I'm a bit spaced out right now.

 

As stated before our minds work through electrical impulses, therefore if we can figure out how those work, we could easily build a self-aware, conscious machine capable of even the most complex thought, possibly even far beyond human capability.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by TK8252MJL

Well, inventors, created things which were never taught to them how to create. So they thought outside of what they were taught. Humans have the ability to create new ideas. Animals, and machines will probably never have his ability.

nothing taught the first chimps to use sticks to get termites out of logs, all conscious creatures are capable of evolving their thought process, accessing simple ideas that seem so complex at first. Take a dog for example, noone trains those dogs to save their masters from the fire, the dog just one day wakes up smelling the smoke and pulls the old lady to safety. Hell the other day my cat started opening doors, I never tought him that nor did my mom or anything/anyone else.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TK8252MJL

Humans have the ability to create new ideas. Animals, and machines will probably never have his ability.

 

What's the difference between a human and an animal? There is no real difference, other than that of an arbitrary definition (we need to label our species something apart from others).

 

Whats the difference between a human and a machine? There is no real difference, other than that of an arbitrary definition (we need to label mechanical things we create from the mechanical things we are ourselves).

 

A lot of people are still grounded in the notion that machines must be these crude contraptions of metal and robotic movements. Everything done in the human body is done by sheer mechanics - movement, growth and thought. Even now, we are slowly working our way to researching organic microchips and computers, and combined with machines working on the molecular scale could be used to create the first artifical brain. This brain would only need a casing of some sort and it would then be almost impossible to define "life". DNA is just a molecular code, a more advanced one would no doubt be created for these new organic machines.

 

There is no candle-like soul in us that powers us and sets us apart from everything else, life in our case is just a self-replicating machine.

[TK-8252]

A machine has no life, no way of being killed or born. An animal has none or very little conciousness. All animals have their instincts, which is probably how chimps know to use tools like sticks and leafs for survival. Humans have instincts too, but since civilization, most of those survival instincts have diminished.

[El Sitherino]

So if a machine can neither be killed nor born does that mean it just is?

 

Isn't a machines birth its manufacturing process? Once it's taken off the assembly line isn't it technically alive? According to scientific rule something is alive if it requires energy from it's food in order to maintain it's ... life, It can reproduce in order to maintain it's existence(the machines that make machines in car shop and factories.), it requires a point of rest or recharge (you can't leave a car running forever or else it breaks down much like a person that never sleeps).

 

All of these are recorded aspects that determine if something is alive.

[TK-8252]

Well, InsaneSith, there are different ways of looking at what can actually be born. IMO, only living things can be considered to be born. Machines like cars and computers are just... made, and then activated. It has no life, no need to eat, no bones, no skin, no hair, no feelings, no senses.

[Tyrion]

What the hell, excactly, are feelings? The only real answer we have scientifically is that it is a combination of hormones and chemical reactions.

 

But TK8252MJL, I have to question your rules for the robots..

 

-No life: Define life. If it's merely feelings, then surely the robots could be programed to? Or if you mean born..they are simply born via another way.

 

-No need to eat: Yes, they do need to eat. After all, every single object wastes more energy than it uses. And since there probably wont be a perpetual energy machine ever created, will not the machines require fuel?

 

-No bones: Neither do certain fish, and not for bacteria and singlecelluar cells. Both of which are alive. I'll skip the next two, as this would be the same answer.

 

-No feelings: Feelings are chemicals and hormones.

 

-No senses: Sensors can be implemented into the machines, mind you. They can, with the proper equipment, sense MORE than we can. Visually, phonic, or temperature, they can sense more than we ever could.

 

But...here is what I believe will make a machine truly be able to think. If it can query and be sentient of the area around it, and the things affecting it. Mainly, it needs to be sentient.

[RpTheHotrod]

A machine will be alive when it develops the traits of AI without someone programming that AI...until then, it's only doing what it was made to do.

 

 

"It's anticipating an attack, and anticipation denotes intelligence."

 

 

When you can walk up to a machine, and it starts to defend itself or attack, WITHOUT being programmed to sense, defend, or attack....then it may be a "lifeform"

 

 

and if you want to know the biggest difference between animals and humans....humans are the only ones to ask "Why?"

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod

When you can walk up to a machine, and it starts to defend itself or attack, WITHOUT being programmed to sense, defend, or attack....then it may be a "lifeform"

Technically we are taught means of defending ourselves just as people are taught means of attack. Sure we know self defense naturally by instinct but who's to say they aren't already making self aware cybernetic beings? I mean in the 60's the American Army was making all sorts of things cellular phones, pagers, high speed fax machines, super NAPALM, and other weapons....oh let's not forget agent orange and a genetically altered form of anthrax spores.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I anticipate things are you trying to denote my intelligence? Does this mean you think my anticipation makes me stupid?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=denotes&r=67

 

Heh, wrong idea. Denote means to point out something. Maybe you were thinking of demote?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Tyrion

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=denotes&r=67

 

Heh, wrong idea. Denote means to point out something. Maybe you were thinking of demote?

... crap. Sorry bout that, just logged in for my morning check up... well I guess this would help me conclude why I walked right into the wall.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

No, machines can't "think". They aren't "alive".

 

Humans and animals are organic. Machines are mechanical. That's the big point.

 

What's the difference between a human and an animal? There is no real difference, other than that of an arbitrary definition (we need to label our species something apart from others).

Humans are animals. I'd think you knew that:p.

 

Whats the difference between a human and a machine? There is no real difference, other than that of an arbitrary definition (we need to label mechanical things we create from the mechanical things we are ourselves).

There's an 'arbitrary definition difference' between all things, but that's off-topic.

 

C'Jais, for crying out loud. You're an intelligent being. Not to flame you, but how could you say that there's no difference between a machine and a human? There are differences allright. I guess I just misunderstand you.

 

A lot of people are still grounded in the notion that machines must be these crude contraptions of metal and robotic movements. Everything done in the human body is done by sheer mechanics - movement, growth and thought. Even now, we are slowly working our way to researching organic microchips and computers, and combined with machines working on the molecular scale could be used to create the first artifical brain. This brain would only need a casing of some sort and it would then be almost impossible to define "life". DNA is just a molecular code, a more advanced one would no doubt be created for these new organic machines.

The brain part: Then you'd be alive, with a mechanical brain. Simple as that. Creating an android like Data is done by a Non-Organic process. Creating a human fetus is an organic process. A computer is not born, it's built. You may as well say that houses are alive.

 

There is no candle-like soul in us that powers us and sets us apart from everything else, life in our case is just a self-replicating machine.

We are living, they are not. That, in my opinion, sets us apart.

 

Machines are already "smarter" than many life forms already.

Wrong. Machines aren't smart, they're simply well-programmed with "if this then that" for a good deal of things. A chess simulator's AI is not 'smart'. In fact, it's extremely narrow and shallow, and able to do only what it's been programmed to do: Move pieces, play chess. A chess simulator would never move a paw three squares unless there's a bug in the system. Humans, however, could eventually discover a new set of rules for chess. I know the chess program could also learn these rules, but the thing is, it has to be thought to do it. Humans, however, can learn without being thought. Yes, it helps to get outside help when you've discovered soccer and is trying to learn to learn the basics, but we can figure it out on our own. We can invent new things, and new ways of using them. A machine that was given a CD would only be able to read the CD and carry out other basic functions (ejection, writing, scanning, and so on). A human baby given a CD, however, would need no instructions whatsoever to start chewing on it, rolling it, smiling at the reflection of itself, breaking it, drooling on it, hitting something or someone with it, painting it, urinating on it, throwing it, and my god knows what else.

 

Yes, a machine can change things. For example, a computer could launch a program and decide to replace the string "Start new Game" with "doggies are great". But only by being told to do so.

 

Look, neither light, nor friction, gravity, viruses, computer keys, or house keys aren't alive. They are things. There's a set dictionary definition of life and computers simply do not fullfill them.

 

However, if we made something fully out of organic materials (for example, if we grafted a human using transplanted organs etc. from other humans, animals, or organic beings), that item would be a living organic being.

[TK-8252]

Dagobahn Eagle basically just said what I was trying to say. I guess I'm just not smart enough to put it the right way.

 

The main thing is, it seems almost impossible to get an artificial being to actually be able to think on it's own. If humans could not think outside of their instincts, we'd all still be cavemen in a prehistoric world. BEFORE they invented the wheel and discovered fire.

 

But back to the main idea, robots and computers are built, not born. Being born requires life. As far as we know, all living things need blood, water, and food to live. Robots really don't use blood do they? Water doesn't help them much, nor does food. Although you could say that a robot's "food" is electricity. But that's not really edible, it's a source of energy for them.

[toms]

some scientists in the uk have created a robot that solves scientific experiments. Once it is finished it then uses its results to design a new experiment to test a new theory. It then runs that experiment and uses the results to develop a new theory to test.

 

It is pretty freaky.

 

However, until it gets smart enough to fix its results to match it's hypothesis (like we all used to do in physics class) i don't think it can be called truely intelligent.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

No, machines can't "think". They aren't "alive".

 

So they can't "think" because they aren't alive, is that it?

 

Humans and animals are organic. Machines are mechanical. That's the big point.

 

Although I expected to be proven wrong, the dictionary actually does confirm that human bodies and other living organisms can be called machines. But that's not my point.

 

Humans are animals. I'd think you knew that:p.

 

That's what I think. I just wrote we chose to differentiate between the two out of linguistic necessity.

 

 

There's an 'arbitrary definition difference' between all things, but that's off-topic.

 

Correct. Although some people think otherwise regarding, oh say, Good and Evil, and Man and Machine.

 

The brain part: Then you'd be alive, with a mechanical brain.

 

But without a human brain, are we not simply a shell of skin and bone?

 

What if we reverse the scenario - a human brain in a "mechanical" body? Alive or not?

 

Simple as that. Creating an android like Data is done by a Non-Organic process. Creating a human fetus is an organic process. A computer is not born, it's built. You may as well say that houses are alive.

 

Single celled organisms are not born, they are cloned. It is only called an organic process because it's built on what we call organic molecules. Imagine that we encounter an alien thing consisting of self-replicating nano robots under a non-carbon based casing, with a brain and body much like ours, but not organic in the least. It does not give birth to another individual, it creates them. Is it alive?

 

Suppose I chose to clone myself, and let the clone be grown in a vat, working the same way as a womb. Would it be born?

Imagine a machine wants to recreate itself - it builds a little robot programmed much like our DNA is, to recreate the original from scratch by assembling molecules and binding them etc. It is not organic, oh no, but how can you say it is not reproducing? How can you say it doesn't give birth to a clone of itself?

 

Wrong. Machines aren't smart, they're simply well-programmed with "if this then that" for a good deal of things.

 

You're equating machine with computer here. Our brains can compute as well, but can do a lot of more things.

 

What if we able to create a simulation that examined the environment, tested its abilities and actually "evolved" and got smarter as it did? It's not a program beyond that it's programmed to act on its impulses, like we are. It's not a computer beyond that it can do computing and store the information it gets from the environment and from figuring things out itself, like animals. But it is capable of creating new pathnodes directly in its hardware, allowing for more complex interactions and insights into the way things interacted, whether on a physical or social place.

 

But this thing was not evolved from something else, the basic form was purely designed by humans. It cannot clone itself either, only recreate itself once it has figured out how it was built. But why are such details terribly important to us? If it can sense, interact and evolve, is it not thinking? If it looks alive, feels alive and sounds alive, why is it not alive?

 

Put that bad boy in a casing and slam it into a body of some sort and you've got yourself a new species.

 

However, if we made something fully out of organic materials (for example, if we grafted a human using transplanted organs etc. from other humans, animals, or organic beings), that item would be a living organic being.

 

What if the end result of such a grafting was unable to think and reproduce? Yes, it can still grow itself and operate its limbs when given the command to, or from simple nervous stimulation, but it wouldn't be "human" would it?

 

Now, what if we could graft a being from mechanical parts and robotic components. This being was then given a simulative, evolving program like the one described above with the imperative of surviving and reproducing. Would it be more alive than the grafted, yet useless human body?

[Lathain Valtiel]

..You all do realize that this is all hypothetical, correct?

 

By the way.. C'jais, you do not have the power to say with authority that something like a soul does not exist. You cannot effectively prove it. Just because we cannot see or sense such a thing does not mean it is nonexistant. Case in point, a blind person can't see color. Does that make it nonexistant? No.

 

Next point. The term life is subjective.

 

Final points. The actual question. To answer it, we must first raise the question as to what exactly is thought.

 

None of us can decrypt the various processes involved in thought. If we could, then we by default can create a machine utilizing those processes. However, I doubt humans will ever be able to decrypt thought. So I'm diving into the hypothetical.

 

Why this even went into a life argument evades me.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

..You all do realize that this is all hypothetical, correct?

 

By the way.. C'jais, you do not have the power to say with authority that something like a soul does not exist.

 

But do I have the authority to say humans can't flap their wings and fly? Or that pink elephants don't exist for that matter?

 

Yes, I do, because no, they can't and no, they don't exist.

 

It is not my job to prove a negative. Until it has positively been proven that something like souls exist, then I couldn't care less about adressing them in debates as this.

 

Case in point, a blind person can't see color. Does that make it nonexistant? No.

 

Funny you should bring up colours, as they are merely rays of light at specific wavelengths interpreted by our brains. To the blind person, they don't exist at all, and to the rest of us, they are just something our brains make up. Colours don't exist outside our brains.

 

Next point. The term life is subjective.

 

Yes and no. When the time comes when we will create machines like I described, we will seriously have to update our meaning of the term.

 

Final points. The actual question. To answer it, we must first raise the question as to what exactly is thought.

 

Good point.

 

None of us can decrypt the various processes involved in thought. If we could, then we by default can create a machine utilizing those processes. However, I doubt humans will ever be able to decrypt thought. So I'm diving into the hypothetical.

 

So you don't even want to participate in this debate?

 

Why this even went into a life argument evades me.

 

Because it's fun!

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by C'jais

But do I have the authority to say humans can't flap their wings and fly? Or that pink elephants don't exist for that matter?

 

Yes, I do, because no, they can't and no, they don't exist.

 

It is not my job to prove a negative. Until it has positively been proven that something like souls exist, then I couldn't care less about adressing them in debates as this.

 

I could argue that we can't even realistically prove that WE exist as we know it. We could all be in theory the fightments of imagination of a higher power. We cannot prove what is reality, and on the same token we can't say a soul or something similar does/does not exist.

 

 

Funny you should bring up colours, as they are merely rays of light at specific wavelengths interpreted by our brains. To the blind person, they don't exist at all, and to the rest of us, they are just something our brains make up. Colours don't exist outside our brains.

 

That supports my point you realize?

 

Yes and no. When the time comes when we will create machines like I described, we will seriously have to update our meaning of the term.

 

Yes, but it would still be subjective.

 

So you don't even want to participate in this debate?

 

I will if I feel like it.

 

 

Because it's fun!

 

Okey dokey.