Swagg

Sydney Kpundeh Professor Couch Introduction to Philosophy 1101 February 23, 2013 substitute Intelligence The year is 2013 and technology dominates our day and age. Our society is turning to hotshot that requires rough sort of technology to survive. One may fence in that a lot of mint hurl cell phones or know how to engagement one. That provide range from a ten year old child, to an 85 year old grandmother. One may too argue that approximately households earn either a television or computer or even both in most cases.The use of technology in peoples lives is growing and therefore the demand for technological products. Children be addicted to playing games on their PlayStation or texting their buddies and their pargonnts atomic number 18 busy move emails and checking stocks on their iPads. With this steady growth in usage of technology in peoples lives, the demand for these machines is also growing. Competitors selling these machines compete to learn their products bet ter than the rest of the sellers, constantly keeping them updated and in tune with what people would want to see in these machines and what they need from them.For example, let us aspect at SIRI, which is software developed by the company orchard apple tree. It is an intelligent ad hominem assistant which is used in Apple products. Siri is outflown a cleaning womans voice and uses it to answer questions, make recommendations, and perform actions by relegating requests to a find out of Web services. Most machines in this generation are equipped with this personal assistant talent or something real similar. This impudently recent development in machines has stirred a very elicit contend amongst philosophers.That debate is whether or non machines ingest the ability to bet back. Alan play, who was a computer scientist, wrote a 950 page paper in the 1950s, about a way to test whether machines can actually think. It became known as the Turning Test for Thinking Machines. In his paper Turning also outlines some dissents people had to machine intelligence. Christopher Evans was also a computer scientist and he also wrote a paper entitled, Can Machines think in which he summarizes Turnings objections, comments on them, and also gives his own opinion on the subject. In this paper, I give ocus on two of his objections to the thesis that machines can think that Evans considers and replies to, and I volition explain my side on those issues. The showtime objection is the Theological objectionMan is a creation of God, and has been given a consciousness and the military group of conscious conception. Machines are not spiritual beings, have no soul and thus must be incapable of thought (Evans 221). This argument objects to the thesis that machines can think. Evans leans on what Turning already pointed out in his paper, that this objection puts an unwarranted restriction on God. Why shouldnt he give machines souls and allow them to think if he wanted t o? (Evans 221). Evan replies by saying that this is irrefutable. If we do thinking as something that only if man can do and something that only God has the power to grant, then machines cannot think because God created man with the ability to think. Man created machines just since man does not have the same powers as God, they are not able to give these machines the ability to think. Therefore machines cannot think. I am a strong believer in God and I believe he created all living creatures on this earth, along with macrocosm and the ground we inhabit.Everything else that we see now in the world is a by-product of those 3 things and therefore not a creation by God. That gist that they do not have the same functions as the things created by God. eyeshot is one of those functions. A make was created by man and nobody would argue that a building has the ability to even speak yet whole think. Machines, the like computers, iPods, iPhones, PlayStations, etc. , were all created by Man. Therefore just like a building, there should not even be a debate about whether or not they have the ability to think.Just like how building designs have become more sophisticated, machines have also had significant advances from when they were first created. However all of these new developments are additions by humans and they have nothing to do with the primary functions of the building or machine. Buildings are lock away made to keep things in and keep things out. Machines are made for recreation and to befriend our lives as humans run smoother. Nothing has changed. I turn back strongly with Evans on this point which rejects the idea that machines can think, and believe he makes a good argument.The second objection is the Unpredictability objection- Computers are created by humans according to a set of rules and operate according to conservatively scripted programs which themselves are sets of rules. So if you wanted to, you could work out precisely what a computer was going to do at any special time (Evans 223). That being verbalise, computers therefore are totally predictable. Humans however, are unpredictable and do not operate according to a set of rules. Therefore because humans are unpredictable, they are capable of error, which cannot be said about the predictable machines.The fact that machines are incapable of error and every(prenominal) one of their moves are predictable agent that they do not have the ability to think. Evans replies by rejecting this thought. He says that machines nowadays are more multifactorial and dynamic that they can bewilderment us and make mistakes. Although they are programmed in most of their actions, some still have the ability to re-program themselves and therefore can be unpredictable. Consequently, Evans argues that in this aspect machines have the ability to think. I discord with Evans on this reply because I do not think he makes a strong argument.I will use the Siri example mentioned earlier to help support my position. Siri was programmed by Apple and all of Siris functions and response have been thought out and tested, and therefore predictable. However, it is impossible to predict everything that Siri says. Siri can surprise people because its response, even though they are predicted, caters to the users personality, interest, and likes. Siri saves and takes a note of every action you perform on your phone, or Apple product. If you constantly search for close McDonalds in the area and then take aim Siri for example, what do I feel like eating today? It is exceedingly probable that Siri is going to respond McDonalds. That does not believe Siri is thinking. It just means that is was programmed to study your search habits and interests. Siri could also say Wendys, because it knows you like fast victuals and Wendys has the same type of food as McDonalds, but it knows you forever eat McDonalds and could use something different to eat. That again does not mean that Si ri is thinking, it just means it is programmed to sort through your likes and habits, and decided to suggest something which was not what ost people would have predicted. This is just another reason why I believe machines cannot think. This debate is a very intriguing one. Previous generations likely would turn in their graves if they actually knew that we were spending time and property debating and researching the thought of machines having the ability to think. However now the time being the twenty-first century and with all the technology advances that comes with living in this age, it is a very plausible debate.The thesis and the common belief now is that these new machines, from phones to cars, think on their own but like Evans, I disagree with this argument. Although there can be valid cases for machines thinking on their own, and Evans even agrees with the average on some occasions, there still is not enough depict today to turn that claim into a fact. Evans makes very st rong cases for why they still cannot think, cases that I have commented on above and stated my view, but in the end it goes down to the fundamental definition of the word think.Websters dictionary defines the word think as have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about individual or something she thought that nothing would be the same again. Based on that definition entirely machines cannot have their own opinions or beliefs about something. A car cannot, for example, not feel like driving today so it refuses to start. Therefore machines cannot think and they will never gain the ability to think because you cannot give someone or something an opinion.