comments
Respond
Comment on the article
Add a citation
Reply with an article
Start a new topic
Edit
Edit article
Delete article
Share
Invite
Link
Embed
Social media
Avatar
View
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Article ✓
Outline
Document
Down
All
Page
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Updates
Subscribe to updates
Get updates
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past month
Past year
Pause updates
Contact us
No: computers can't reason scientifically
Computers are unable to think and reason as human scientists do.
115
RELATED ARTICLES
Explain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence☜A collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?—exploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.☜F1CEB7
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
Can computers think? [1]☜Can a computational system possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding? ☜FFB597
■
No: computers can't reason scientifically
No: computers can't reason scientifically☜Computers are unable to think and reason as human scientists do.☜59C6EF
↳
Computers can't adequately evaluate hypotheses
Computers can't adequately evaluate hypotheses☜A computer model of scientific discovery would have to use a criterion of preference to choose between hypotheses that explain data equally well. But such criterion tend to be imprecise and idiosyncratic making implementation on a computer unlikely.☜98CE71
↳
Computers can't introduce new principles
Computers can't introduce new principles☜Computers discoveries are limited to those that can be expressed using the programs fixed vocabulary and conceptual apparatus: human discovery involves introduction of new terms and principles that cant be defined via those.☜98CE71
↳
Scientific reasoning requires social agreement
Scientific reasoning requires social agreement☜Computers cannot reason scientifically vecause htey are not members of society. Scientific laws and data do not follow from the application of an alogrith, but are developed through a quasi-philosophical process of negotiation. ☜98CE71
↳
Computers have already reasoned scientifically
Computers have already reasoned scientifically☜Computer systems exist that have reasoned as scientists do, proposing explanatory hypotheses and choosing among them.☜EF597B
□
Should the definition of thought be broadened?
Should the definition of thought be broadened?☜Is it appropriate to limit the issue to all important elements of human thinking or understanding? Should the kinds and levels of thought demonstrated by other creatures (e.g. cats or porpoises) be excluded?☜FFB597
□
No: computers are inherently disabled
No: computers are inherently disabled ☜Machines can never do X, where X is any variety of abilities that are regarded as distinctly human—e.g. being friendly, having a sense of humour, making mistakes, or thinking about oneself. ☜59C6EF
□
No: computers can't have free will
No: computers can't have free will☜Machines only do what they have been designed to do and cant make voluntary, unconstrained decisions that are independent of the influence of deterministic factors. Hence, they lack free will and, therefore, cant think.☜59C6EF
□
No: computers can't have emotions
No: computers can't have emotions☜Machines can never be in emotional states (they can never be angry, joyous, fearful etc), and emotions are necessary for thought.☜59C6EF
□
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]☜Connectionist networks can possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding.☜59C6EF
□
No: computers can't draw analogies
No: computers can't draw analogies☜Computers cant understand analogical comparisons or metaphors. For example, a machine could not understand the sentence: she ran like the wind.☜59C6EF
□
No: computers can't be creative
No: computers can't be creative☜Computers can never be creative. They only do what they are programmed to do. They have no originality or creative powers.☜59C6EF
□
No: computers can't be conscious [6]
No: computers can't be conscious [6]☜Machines cant have subjective experiences. Machines cant consciously perceive, feel, or remember anything. And, because consciousness is necessary for thought, machines cant think either.☜59C6EF
□
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]☜Thinking is a rule governed manipulation of symbolic representational structures. In humans, symbol systems are instantiated in the brain, but the same symbol systems can also be instantiated in a computer. ☜59C6EF
□
No: computers can't be persons
No: computers can't be persons☜Machines can never be persons. They lack ethical status and cannot bear responsibility for their actions. At best, they can display person-like behaviour.☜59C6EF
□
No: machines perform rather than understand maths
No: machines perform rather than understand maths☜Machines only operate on uninterpreted symbols. Even when they perform operations corresponding to addition, they are merely shuffling symbols that are meaningless to them. These manipulations become mathematics only when humans interpret them.☜59C6EF
□
Yes: because a brain is a computer
Yes: because a brain is a computer☜The biological assumption: the brain is a machine that can think. Its neurobiological processes are similar to or identical with the information processes of a computer.☜59C6EF
□
No: computers can't understand images [5b]
No: computers can't understand images [5b]☜Computers cant think because they cant use images in the way that people do. Computers can only deal with formal symbolic information.☜59C6EF
□
Yes: Existence entails Possibility
Yes: Existence entails Possibility☜Since they do, they can. To act intelligently, as computers do, is to exercise intelligence, or thought; i.e., to think. So called existence proofs—computer successes at various intellectual tasks—are possibility proofs as well.☜59C6EF
□
No: God gave souls to humans not machines
No: God gave souls to humans not machines☜The theological objection, anticipated by Turing, that only entities with immortal souls can think. God has given souls to humans, but not to machines. Therefore, humans can think and computers cant.☜59C6EF
□
No: the implications too hard to face
No: the implications too hard to face☜The consequences of machine thought are too dreadful to accept, therefore we should stick our heads in the sand and hope that machines will never be able to think or have souls.☜59C6EF
□
Yes: The cellular processes of the brain can be simulated
Yes: The cellular processes of the brain can be simulated☜Brain processes give rise to thought. Brain processes are made up of cellular processes. Cellular processes can be simulated by computers. Therefore computers that simulate the brain can simulate thought. ☜59C6EF
□
Graph of this discussion
Graph of this discussion☜Click this to see the whole debate, excluding comments, in graphical form☜dcdcdc
Enter the title of your article
Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Enter the main body of your article
Prefer more work space? Try the
big editor
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
November 2024
>
<<
November 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
44
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
45
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
46
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
48
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
0
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#188
Node type:
Position
Entry date (GMT):
6/6/2006 3:58:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
12/28/2007 5:33:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
0
Average rating:
7
by
2
users
Enter comment
Select article text to quote
Cancel
Enter
welcome text
First name
Last name
Email
Skip
Join
x
Select file to upload