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.

[[

87

Argument anticipated by Alan Turing 1950.

Note: a great deal of the debate represented on these maps takes the form of disability arguments—arguments that machines can't be creative, can't use analogies, can't be conscious, and so forth—and so could also be thought of as supports for this claim.

]]

RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Artificial Intelligence
Can computers think? [1]
No: computers are inherently disabled 
Lack diversity of behaviour
Strawberries and cream
Computers can't think about themselves
Computers can't make mistakes
The Differently Abled Reply
Poor inductions from limited experience
Should the definition of thought be broadened?
No: computers can't have free will
No: computers can't have emotions
No: computers can't reason scientifically
Yes: connectionist networks can think [5a]
No: computers can't draw analogies
No: computers can't be creative
No: computers can't be conscious [6]
Yes: physical symbol systems can think [3]
No: computers can't be persons
No: machines perform rather than understand maths
Yes: because a brain is a computer
No: computers can't understand images [5b]
Yes: Existence entails Possibility
No: God gave souls to humans not machines
No: the implications too hard to face
Yes: The cellular processes of the brain can be simulated
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (1)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip