Can Machines think?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
If we create a machine/computer capable of thinking on its own, is it still a machine or computer or something else entirely?


More importantly...

What do we do when we realize they are thinking?




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Interesting question op. After reading the comments, I think it would be cool to approach it from the other direction.

How long before conscious beings, such as ourselves, become machines by replacing all of our organic parts with longer lasting materials? This leads to the question, at what point of prosthetic replacement does a human stop being a human?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
the trouble with machine think is
a machine would have to get pretty smart and string quite a few thoughts together in order to create
but only has to think a couple (even broken) thoughts to destroy...

take stuxnet for example....



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
A machine with AI would be an artificial lifeform, not a machine.
There is no doubt that there will be AIs. Quantum computing and/or nanotech (thinking of silveratom neurons) will do the trick.
It's difficult to guess when this will be. 20years? Whatsoever, with AIs civilization could reach a whole new level. No more imperfect information allocation, logical resource distribution, no meaningless work etc. Deus ex machina.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by michaelbrux
yes...but even the most advanced still talk like a machine.

i suspect i've encountered AI in a couple of situations...you never really know if its AI until you've interacted with it for a while.

it will eventually reveal itself to be a machine.

here are a couple of things i've noticed about thinking machine via my encounter with AI on the internet.

Machines always have a response...human beings do not.
Machines don't have nuance...all things are on or off, black or white...







I'm talking about a highly advanced A.I. Like one that can think like we do, is it then still a machine/computer, or has it surpassed that and moved on to life? I guess it also depends on your definition of life, and whether life can only be biological.


so you mean...a machine that you can go to the tavern with to pick up chicks?

a machine that can fall in love and propagate? and get a place in the 'burbs and raise up little machines?

no...this doesn't exist OP.



But if and when we create this machine/computer that can do this, Just for a second think hypothetically about creating a machine/computer that can think as we do, and we also create a robotic body, outfitted with sensors for pain/pleasure etc. Is this computer/machine person alive? Are we morally obligated to treat it as such?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaVice
Interesting question op. After reading the comments, I think it would be cool to approach it from the other direction.

How long before conscious beings, such as ourselves, become machines by replacing all of our organic parts with longer lasting materials? This leads to the question, at what point of prosthetic replacement does a human stop being a human?


Interesting angle. But yea you get the point. We have things now currently that resemble A.I. But when I refer to this computer/machine that can think, I'm talking about advanced technology we haven't created yet. Think 50-100 years in the future or farther out. The possibilities are endless. If we do create a machine/computer capable of thinking and thought, is it life? Vice versa, if through time all of our biological organs can be replaced by computer technology, somehow transferring our brain activity to a processor or something, are we still alive?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


if we built it...it didn't create itself.

its a machine. you keep saying that...and until it can create itself...it'll end up at the recycling facility the same as the machines of today after we've built better machines.

so, no...never will it be treated as a life. why? because it is a machine and is not alive.

until it can reproduce itself...it is NOT alive.

OP...have you ever Googled the biological definition of what it means to be ALIVE? did you even sit in a freshman level biology class?

sorry for repeating myself...but its obvious that you need to be told machines aren't alive and until they can exist without any human interference they will always be a machine.

machines will never have rights...and never be treated with the same regard as human beings.

OP...i'm getting ready to toss my calculator in the garbage for no other reason than because you started this idiotic thread.

lets see what happens to me as a result.

edit on 19-3-2012 by michaelbrux because: elaboration



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by andersensrm
 


if we built it...it didn't create itself.

its a machine. you keep saying that...and until it can create itself...it'll end up at the recycling facility the same as the machines of today after we've built better machines.

so, no...never will it be treated as a life. why? because it is a machine and is not alive.

until it can reproduce itself...it is NOT alive.

OP...have you ever Googled the biological definition of what it means to be ALIVE? did you even sit in a freshman level biology class?

sorry for repeating myself...but its obvious that you need to be told machines aren't alive and until they can exist without any human interference they will always be a machine.

machines will never have rights...and never be treated with the same regard as human beings.

OP...i'm getting ready to toss my calculator in the garbage for no other reason than because you started this idiotic thread.

lets see what happens to me as a result.

edit on 19-3-2012 by michaelbrux because: elaboration



"Until they can exist without any human interference they will always be a machine" thats what I'm talking about and you skipped right over it. When they can reproduce themselves, without interaction from us. If you think I'm talking about current technology I've already explained that I'm not, so maybe you need to sit in a freshman english class. I don't care about your calculator. When the machine "can exist without any human interference" is it still a machine, or is it alive. You've already implied that it is no longer a machine and alive, so you do have an opinion on such an idiotic subject.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by OmegaVice
Interesting question op. After reading the comments, I think it would be cool to approach it from the other direction.

How long before conscious beings, such as ourselves, become machines by replacing all of our organic parts with longer lasting materials? This leads to the question, at what point of prosthetic replacement does a human stop being a human?


Interesting angle. But yea you get the point. We have things now currently that resemble A.I. But when I refer to this computer/machine that can think, I'm talking about advanced technology we haven't created yet. Think 50-100 years in the future or farther out. The possibilities are endless. If we do create a machine/computer capable of thinking and thought, is it life? Vice versa, if through time all of our biological organs can be replaced by computer technology, somehow transferring our brain activity to a processor or something, are we still alive?


It would be amazing to see what we have achieved in a century, especially if you hold to the view that our technology is progressing in an exponential fashion, rather than linear. Especially cool to see how far they develop pattern recognition compared to ours, as well as all the "unknown unknowns".

I think the life question you posed, both facets, sums up the conflict fairly well. For every individual that has lived, there is a unique definition of life. The hard part is getting to agree.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


whatever you want to believe...

you just want to win an argument.

i lose...feel better.

continue your idiot thread about something that'll never be.

humans aren't capable of creating anything that will one day surpass the creator.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


Self-replication is implied I believe, especially at the level of AI comparable to human intelligence.

Have you ever heard of the Grey Goo theory? You should check it out, it touches on the subject of machines reproducing.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaVice
 


grey goo...got it.

but the ability to reproduce is basic.

it implies that the machine has become so advanced that it no longer requires any input from the person that built it...

l should ask the OP...

if a Scientist constructed a machine so advanced that it no longer needed him and could chart its own destiny...would that scientist have ever constructed it?

it would seem to me that if a machine reached this point that the machines would be having conversations among themselves debating whether human beings should have rights.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by OmegaVice
 


grey goo...got it.

but the ability to reproduce is basic.

it implies that the machine has become so advanced that it no longer requires any input from the person that built it...

l should ask the OP...

if a Scientist constructed a machine so advanced that it no longer needed him and could chart its own destiny...would that scientist have ever constructed it?

it would seem to me that if a machine reached this point that the machines would be having conversations among themselves debating whether human beings should have rights.



The question you asked me is not unlike the one I proposed on the thread. Did the scientist create it, or did he just reach some theoretical point where "nature" or whatever you want to call it, starts a chain reaction leading to conscience, or if conscience needs to be created, or can it be created?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 

"Thinking" as you put it can really be just recall of data to reach a decision about some question. Computers do that quite well. Better than humans by far.

"Knowing" is something altogether different. A computer will never know that it knows. The best a computer program can ever do is execute the next instruction.

Despite what the "Arty - Int" teams proclaim, the best they will ever be able to program a computer to do will be... to execute the next instruction.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Eventually computers may be able to simulate thinking as good as humans do, but I doubt they will ever be conscious. It's my belief that humans are conscious because they have souls, so unless robots gain souls, they would not be able to know they're "alive" and thus unable to think for themselves.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I've posted on this recently. To highlight, I think we're going to find in the future people convinced that we've found/made AI, some scientists included since there's money to be made, while it still is incredibly basic in its functioning. The UFO mentality that some people have where everything is a ufo or proof of one is going to be how some AI proponents respond. Or similarly with Chat bots, some people are just amazed at how far Ai has come.


They'll probably change the definition of AI to suit their current product as well, aka marketing.

There has to be some sort of "newness" I would say for something to be AI. But I have a feeling that you could have "AI" that is incredibly stale, but it'll be played off as being the real deal.
edit on 19-3-2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by andersensrm
 

"Thinking" as you put it can really be just recall of data to reach a decision about some question. Computers do that quite well. Better than humans by far.

"Knowing" is something altogether different. A computer will never know that it knows. The best a computer program can ever do is execute the next instruction.

Despite what the "Arty - Int" teams proclaim, the best they will ever be able to program a computer to do will be... to execute the next instruction.


How do we know this is the best we can do? Whats to say that changes in the next 100 years? Hypothetically, lets just say we've created it. A living machine/robot, that "knows" it's alive, "thinks" by recalling past experiences, and learns as we do. Is it still a machine at this point?


Originally posted by bl4ke360
Eventually computers may be able to simulate thinking as good as humans do, but I doubt they will ever be conscious. It's my belief that humans are conscious because they have souls, so unless robots gain souls, they would not be able to know they're "alive" and thus unable to think for themselves.



Really depends on what your definition of soul is. If we figure out some way to create a "conscience" so that they know what they are, and they can formulate thoughts on their own, are we morally obliged to these robots as we are biological life? Its just a question there's no right or wrong answer.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 
S+F for your "thinking"...Hel from Metropolis,Robbie The Robot from Forbidden Planet,The Robot from Lost In Space,Hal 9000 from 2001-A Space Odyssey and C3PO and R2D2 from Star Wars could all think their own thoughts.But will we ever be able to design and build machines such as those and others that are capable of thinking on their own? Maybe if and when we are able to attain the abilities of a Class-2 civilization.Right now were are not even a Class-1 yet,which is a civilization who can maintain and control the natural resources and energy output of their entire planet...

Isaac Asimov-The Three Laws Of Robotics > en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 19-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
No,,,,Computers cannot think with our current technology. I am a computer expert and I can tell you with a fact no they cannot think. They can only do. When you program an application(Which I have done many times over) you have to tell the application everything to do, you even have to account for human beings clicking on things they shouldn't and you have to program that as well(it's called over-runs). Machines only do what they are told and nothing more. I only wish sometimes they could think as it would make my job a whole lot easier programming machines, because sometimes you want to kick them as they can't do the simplest things your brain can do everyday.

Do you know how much programming it would take to just make artificial wrist and hand? It would take millions of lines of code just for the one simple function you use everyday. It's amazing what your brain can do, but you only understand it when you program and then you truly appreciate our brains.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
No,,,,Computers cannot think with our current technology. I am a computer expert and I can tell you with a fact no they cannot think. They can only do. When you program an application(Which I have done many times over) you have to tell the application everything to do, you even have to account for human beings clicking on things they shouldn't and you have to program that as well(it's called over-runs). Machines only do what they are told and nothing more. I only wish sometimes they could think as it would make my job a whole lot easier programming machines, because sometimes you want to kick them as they can't do the simplest things your brain can do everyday.

Do you know how much programming it would take to just make artificial wrist and hand? It would take millions of lines of code just for the one simple function you use everyday. It's amazing what your brain can do, but you only understand it when you program and then you truly appreciate our brains.


I have programmed before actually. I get it, trust me. But what if hypothetically you create so much code, that it eventually takes on a life of its own? It learns, reproduces, strives, thinks.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join