Extra Credit-

I am with Rachel on this one.  The challenge Searle makes regarding the acquisition of a system is a bit of a crux.  Following an algorithm and manipulating Chinese characters can hardly be said to be the same thing as understanding that language.  Or, the manipulator cannot be said to understand what is conveyed through the language.

However, one thing nagging at me is that to understand the omitted portions of the stories, strong AI would have to have that oblique vision associated with Dupin.  It would have to comprehend that which is implied.  An implication may be ingrained in language, but the grasp of syntax required is very impressive, to a level I find to be indistinguishable from those of us who “understand” a language.

Of course, simulation of oblique vision is not the thing as duplication.  Villiers in Tomorrow’s Eve comes the closest to creating a feasible sense of duplication, and Hadaly is entirely contingent upon Lord Ewald’s intentionality.   Seeing a man and a lump of basalt at Java Jones on State St, one may wonder aloud whether or not they are in love.  The man may feel ascending pangs of love, and the basalt says all the right things.  He betrays a vulnerability and it encourages him to share.  It reminds him of his youth on a Corsican beach, upon which day he saw a stone in the shape of a heart (and experienced his first manly initiation).  He shall whisper insinuations and that basalt shall blush.  Later on it will chide him for forgetting their anniversary, making him sleep on the couch.  Yet can they be said to be in love?

Thinking is not a mutual property (especially in relationships), but the systems reply, and even Turing, would have us think that it is a collaborative effort.  I find it hard to believe, regarding the systems reply, that a the quality of loving, or individual thinking, can be ascribed to a system of things- single things that do not contain that property themselves.  And I do not believe, regarding Turing, that this computer on which I type hates me, even though it is hostile and rebuffs all my attempts at seduction…

-Trevor Losh-Johnson

…… ..

Extra Credit – A Thinking Computer

This question has pleagued me for ten weeks, and now I can finally answer it! All of the readings adressed this question, but I think I most agree with the ideas from Searl’s Minds, Brains and Programs. The most compelling part of his argument was the idea that so called “thinking machines” only “think” because a concious being has programmed it to act that way. My macbook recieves orders and carries them out in reply to each specific situation, giving the illusion of thought, but these actions were programmed into my computer by a human programmer. A computer is simply reproducing the thoughts of this programmer. My macbook is merely an interface between the user and this programmer.

Rachel Holm

Extra Credit-Tara Tiger

The question that has hung in our minds throughout this entire course is whether or not machines can think.  According to Turing, if they are able to at least create the illusion of thought, it the machine can trick a person into believing it can think, then the machine must be able to think.  Searle diagreed, however, saying that it would be impossible to create “strong artificial intelligence” because, although a machine might be able to create the illusion of thought, there can never truly be a thinking machine, as a machine could never understand what it is thinking. These two cognitive scientists create opposing arguments: once claiming that artificial intelligence is a possibility dependent only on the right technology; the other saying that a thinking machine is never possible because it is programmed with a certain amount of rules and constraints and thus could never actually understand or really think.  It would seem, though, that Searle is right: that although a machine can create the illusion of humanity, it can never truly achieve it. In Villiers’ Tomorrow’s Eve, Hadaly is the ideal illusion of feminity: it would seem that she has a soul and a mind capable of all the things a human is.  Yet, when it comes down to it, she is merely a machine.  She is composed not of flesh and blood, but of cylinders and metal. Her thoughts are nothing but inscriptions on a cylinder deep within her metal exterior: they are not the result of some more complex and profound phenomenon as human intelligence is.  Also, in Casares The Invention of Morel, the fugitive falls victim to the illusion of the machine. Yet, what he experiences, although Faustine and her fellow vacationers supposedly have a soul, they are bodiless illusions of their former incarnations. They live the same week over and over again, becasue they have been programmed to do so. If they were confronted with some uknown, they could not react to it because it has not been programmed into their being. Thus, one must only come to the conclusion that thought is, at least for the time being, a phenomenon reserved for humanity.

Can machines think?  Well, maybe.  We don’t really know enough about how our own thought processes work to accurately determine whether or not a machine can think.  Sure we can design a machine that emulates the physical actions associated with human thought, but Searle would argue that this is no better than simply creating a human.  There is nothing really artificial about this intellignece.  It is sort of a chicken and egg situation:  we want to use AI to help us better understand how our own thought process works, but we can’t construct strong AI without something to base it on.  I guess I kind of agree with Searle’s assertion that strong AI is impossible without modelling the physical activity of the brain.  On the other hand, I don’t necessarily agree that strong AI is the only way a computer can be considered to be thinking.  If we can build a machine that can pass the turing test 100% of the time, then for all intents and purposes, it must be considered to be thinking.  Since I have no real definitive proof that anyone else in this world is actually thinking (and I don’t think anyone else has proof either), I don’t think its fair to hold machines to higher standards than we hold ourselves.  So… machines can think as long as we don’t really know what it means to think.

Extra Credit – Jack Roger

I don’t believe machines can think because of the Turing test. Yes, that seems like it may be a bit backward but hear me out. In the Turing test, a machine could think if it could fool a person into thinking it was thinking. This got me thinking… there are two flaws to this, (I will exclude the obvious flaw: the ambiguity of the word “think” because I feel we have gone over this a great deal and it is not completely relevant to my argument.) The first flaw is the word “fool.” This word tells me that Turing did not believe machines could think, not now and probably not ever. Because the word “fool” implies that the machine is actually not thinking. Turing could have used a different word such as convince; because to convince someone is to cause them to believe firmly in the truth of something. But to fool someone means that you are tricking, deceiving, or duping the person, you are telling a lie. The second flaw is who it is fooling. Is the machine fooling everyone? Just one person? Does it fool these people for a second? Forever? This is not clearly defined, but in my opinion, to really pass the Turing test a machine must fool every single person who exists. Not only this, but it must fool them always. But wait there’s more…. to thoroughly convince me that the machine is thinking using the Turing test, it must fool every human who has ever existed and ever will exist…. and seeing as this is not really possible, machines cannot think. Fin.

Extra credit Virjina Sarkisova

Thursday, March 22nd, 2007

Thinking is a very unique quality that includes such things as feelings, creativity, personality, freedom, intuition, morality, and so on. Thinking to some extent involves perceiving the environment, processing that information, and acting to make changes. A thinking program must be able to handle inexperienced situations, be able to function effectively with imperfect knowledge, be able to learn from past mistakes, have access to a large amount of common sense knowledge, and be able to predict possible outcomes and prepare for them. “Thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul, God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman but not to any other animal or machine. Hence no animal or machine can think.” (Grafikart reader pg.51). The responses of the machines are not spontaneous but automated and they are incapable of thinking for themselves. They cannot give an advice as would a human being and they are also not capable of feeling emotions. The limitations of the human creations are very evident as man has not been capable of manufacturing a soul. It is the soul that that makes us human beings and not machines. It makes us able of independent thought and action, which these robots are powerless to do. In fact they are helpless and unable if doing anything or feeling anything unless it has been programmed into their systems. They are unable to say anything except for a few sentences recorded into their memories. Also in a time of crisis they are unable to save themselves from destruction.(Olympia,Alicia) Also,  thinking is a product of a brain work , and brain controls all the movements and actions  of our body. The actions and movemnts of the machines are not controlled by the brain,therefore  the machines are unable to think.

Extra Credit~ Lindsay Fletcher

Overall I do not think that computers can think. I think that thinking is a process that involves intuition and emotion, which directly comes from biological human processes rather than the digital process of programming. “Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain” (445, Professor Jefferson in Turing). We have made clear that humans can create an object that looks like it is thinking, but that success can only be equated to appearances. Just because something looks like it is thinking, doesn’t mean that it is actually thinking. Through science and mathematics, humans have invented was to simulate the human processes in inanimate objects, but this simulation of the thought process cannot and does not parallel the biological processes that are uniquely human. That, “one cannot expect to be able to mimic the behavior of the nervous system” (451, Turing). By saying this, Turing is expressing his mysticism and miraculousness about the human nervous system, which cannot be duplicated.

Extra Credit – Darren Kwan

Throughout the course we have been dealing with the topic of “mind” and “machine”. The main question is can machines think? After analyzing all the readings I say that machines can not think. In the text “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” by A.M. Turing, the writer makes various arguments about the possibility of machines thinking. But most of the arguments lean towards to it would be unlikely for machines to think. A quote from that text involving one the arguments called The Argument from Consciousness, “Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain – that is, not only write it but know that it had written it.” From this following quote, it explains that machines are programmed to perform an action such as writing a poem or song. When they write it they don’t know exactly what they are doing. In order to know if you are thinking, you do have to feel it, and be thinking bout it. Similar to what they quote states using emotions and thoughts to compose a song is necessary, because that shows what you are expressing. It is too mechanical to just perform a certain action and not think about it from your consciousness.

-Darren Kwan

extra credit- Kevin Koyasako

*note* Isn’t it amusing how motivated we are just by having this as “extra credit”?

It has been difficult for me to decide whether machines can think.  I have been inclined to favor the possibility of the “thinking machine” as far back as I can remember, but the material for this course has weighed heavily against that belief.  Searle’s argument against “strong AI” is nearly irrefutable.   He states that computers cannot think because at the core of their “thought” processes, all that is going on is the rearrangement of symbols (which is true).  He argues that because of this, no information they receive has meaning.  Our minds, in contrast, immediately creates meaning in all the information and stimuli we absorb from our environment.  But, that leaves me wondering: What is separates the switching of 1′s and 0′s from the firing of neurons and dendrites in the brain?  How does biology justify thought?  The difference is that we know how computers work, but we do not know fully how the human mind works.  We do know through introspection that we do think, and furthermore, that we are conscious.  I believe that it is in fact our lack of understanding which grants our intellectual superiority to machines.  I do not know how a machine could possibly develop self-awareness, as that is something completely intangible and possibly even beyond our understanding.  I tried to find a hopeful solution in Clark’s essay, but the reading only convinced me of how a computer could mimic the signs of consciousness, when in reality a totally different process is occurring than what we would consider “thought”.   Computers can be near-perfect in their illusions, but will not be able to truly think until we fully understand how the mind works.  If we do fully master the mind, it will be whether the human mind is in fact a complex rearrangement of symbols or something completely different that will answer the question of strong AI.

Extra Credit–Courtney Acosta

According to the materials in class i would say that machines cannot think. Machines can be programmed to appear to be thinking, but do not have the capacity to freely think like humans. According to Searle, ” the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind,” ( Searle, 67). A computer has to be programmed to pick up knowledge where as a human can pick it up on its own through senses and perceptions. Computers cannot pick up material from outside their means like a human can and use it to create new knowledge. Humans are self programmable and computers need to have someone or something give them a program. Humans can pick up material in the same fashion as computer but a computer does not have the ability to pick up a material like a human. Dupin in The Murders In The Rue Morgue,can systematically put things together like a machine would but a machine could not pick up things like Dupin could. Machines are different and do not have the capacity to think.

–Courtney Acosta