comments

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?

It might be useful, for example, to distinguish two questions here:

  • The basic question: can computers think at all?
  • The human-level question: can computers think up to a human level or in a human manner?
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
⌃
Can computers think? [1]
■
Should the definition of thought be broadened?
□
No: computers are inherently disabled 
□
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 (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip