 |
Home |  |
Register | |
Login | |
FAQ | |
Contact Us | |
Logout |
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
Can Computers Think? The Case For And Against Artificial Intelligence
Can Computers Think? The Case For and Against Artificial Intelligence Can Computers Think? The Case For and Against Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence has been the subject of many bad "80's" movies and countless science fiction novels. But what happens when we seriously consider the question of computers that think. Is it possible for computers to have complex thoughts, and even emotions, like homo sapien? This paper will seek to answer that question and also look at what attempts are being made to make artificial intelligence (hereafter called AI) a reality. Before we can investigate whether or not computers can think, it is necessary to establish what exactly thinking is. Examining the three main theories is sort of like examining three religions. None offers enough support so as to effectively eliminate the possibility of the others being true. The three main theories are: 1. Thought doesn't exist; enough said. 2. Thought does exist, but is contained wholly in the brain. In other words, the actual material of the brain is capable of what we identify as thought. 3. Thought is the result of some sort of mystical phenomena involving the soul and a whole slew of other unprovable ideas. Since neither reader nor writer is a scientist, for all intents and purposes, we will say only that thought is what we (as homo sapien) experience. So what are we to consider intelligence? The most compelling argument is that intelligence is the ability to adapt to an environment. Desktop computers can, say, go to a specific WWW address. But, if the address were changed, it wouldn't know how to go about finding the new one (or even that it should). So intelligence is the ability to perform a task taking into consideration the circumstances of completing the task. So now that we have all of that out of that way, can computers think? The issue is contested as hotly among scientists as the advantages of Superman over Batman is among pre-pubescent boys. On the one hand are the scientists who say, as philosopher John Searle does, that “Programs are all syntax and no semantics.” (Discover, 106) Put another way, a computer can actually achieve thought because it “merely follows rules that tell it how to shift symbols without ever understanding the meaning of those symbols.” (Discover, 106) On the other side of the debate are the advocates of pandemonium, explained by Robert Wright in Time thus: “[O]ur brain subconsciously generates competing theories about the world, and only the ‘winning' theory becomes part of consciousness. Is that a nearby fly or a distant airplane on the edge of your vision? Is that a baby crying or a cat meowing? By the time we become aware of such images and sounds, these debate have usually been resolved via a winner- take-all struggle. The winning theory-the one that best matches the data-has wrested control of our neurons and thus our perceptual field.” (54) So, since our thought is based on previous experience, computers can eventually learn to think. The event which brought this debate in public scrutiny was Garry Kasparov, reigning chess champion o... This is ONLY a preview of the article. If you would like to view the entire document, you must subscribe to Academic Library. Please register below now!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Home | Register | Login | FAQ | Forgot Password | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Close Account | Contact Us | Logout Copyright 1998-2007 Academic Library. Academic Library is designed only to assist students and researchers in the preparation of their own work. Anybody who use our services are responsible not only for writing their own papers, but also for citing Academic Library as a source when doing so. By accessing and using this page you agree to the Disclaimer. If you wish to cancel your subscription to Academic Library, please click here. |
|
|