Views
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
Page ✓
Article
Outline
Document
Down
All
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Request email digest
Past 24 hours
Past 2 days
Past 3 days
Past week
Add
Add page
Add comment
Add citation
Edit
Edit page
Delete page
Share
Link
Bookmark
Embed
Social media
Login
Member login
Register now for a free account
🔎
No: the implications too hard to face
Position
1
#160
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.
59
Argument anticipated by Alan Turing, 1950.
CONTEXT
(Help)
-
Artificial Intelligence »
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 computers think? [1]☜Can a computational system possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding? ☜FFB597
■
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
●
The Transmigration Consolation »
The Transmigration Consolation
The Transmigration Consolation☜Heads-in-sand objections too trivial to merit response; consolation is more appropriate. Some comfort may be found in belief that souls may pass from humans to machines when humans die by the theological doctrine of the transmigration of the soul.☜EF597B
Heading
Summary
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Details
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 (
1
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
Link
[1]
Computing Machinery and Intelligence
Author:
Alan Turing
Publication info:
1950
Cited by:
Price, David
8:55 PM 17 November 2007 GMT
Citerank:
(5)
142
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.
9
59C6EF
,
162
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 can't.
9
59C6EF
,
207
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.
9
59C6EF
,
214
Computers can be subject of own thoughts
When a computer solves equations, the equations can be said to be the object of its thought. Similarly when a computer is used to predict its own behaviour or to modify its own program, we can say that it's the object of its own thoughts.
13
EF597B
,
265
No: ESP would confound the test
Extrasensory Perception could invalidate the Turing Test in a variety of ways—eg if a competitor with ESP could "listen in" on the judges & gain an unfair advantage, or a judge with ESP could easily discern humans from machines by clairvoyance.
9
59C6EF
URL:
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html
Excerpt / Summary
2) The "Heads in the Sand" Objection
The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so."
This argument is seldom expressed quite so openly as in the form above. But it affects most of us who think about it at all. We like to believe that Man is in some subtle way superior to the rest of creation. It is best if he can be shown to be necessarily superior, for then there is no danger of him losing his commanding position. The popularity of the theological argument is clearly connected with this feeling. It is likely to be quite strong in intellectual people, since they value the power of thinking more highly than others, and are more inclined to base their belief in the superiority of Man on this power.
I do not think that this argument is sufficiently substantial to require refutation. Consolation would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the transmigration of souls.
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#160
Node type:
Position
Entry date (GMT):
6/6/2006 10:24:00 AM
Last edit date (GMT):
12/28/2007 5:37:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
0
Average rating:
4.5
by
2
users
x
Select file to upload