Can Machines Think?

Can machines think? Or rather, can we develop true artificial intelligence in the sense of machines that think and understand as we humans do? This is an interesting problem that is becoming more and more relevant in our lives as computers become more complex and integral to our lives. Two articles, John Searle's "Minds, Brains, and Programs" and William Lycan's "Robots and Minds", present two different answers to this question and also raise several new questions. John Searle takes the position that on one level computers do think - they manipulate symbols - yet on another level they do not think - computers do not understand the symbols they are manipulating to mean anything in the sense that we humans do. Lycan takes the position that yes, computers do think, and that it is quite possibly only a matter of time before a machine can be created that not only looks and behaves like a person, but also thinks like a person. Therefore, Lycan claims, the suitably programmed machine of this complexity is a person as much as you and I are. I fall more on Lycan's side of the argument.

Words such as "intelligence" and "understanding" have variations in their definitions depending on whom you ask. It is often hard to come up with even a simple definition once one delves into the problems at hand. But, since we as humans (in particular Searle) often try to separate ourselves from computers by saying that we understand the meaning of the symbols we manipulate, it is necessary that I give a useful and accurate meaning to the words (or symbols) I will be using.

I define "thinking" as processing information, with any level of complexity. I include in the thinking category a thermostat making the decision to turn on the heat as a result of data stating that the temperature is too low. I include the human contemplating the enormous amount of information contained in his Philosophy book while trying to write a paper for class. Central to this definition is the idea of taking in data and making a decision (even if the decision is to do nothing). I realize that this definition of thinking is a bit broader than common usage, but I do not think that it is outside of acceptable limits. The act of decision making, and limiting the decision making to data, is what separates my definition from Searle's amusing idea of a thinking stomach. The stomach takes in matter and physically processes it in a certain set way. However, any changes in how the stomach treats this matter are the result of the brain sending out decisions it has made by processing the data the stomach has sent to it.

I define "understanding" as the more complex process of making associations between a symbol and other symbols, as well as between a symbol and the actual thing it represents. Therefore, for something to understand a symbol, it must have stored memory about the symbol, and be able to make associations between the symbol and other related things. Depth of understanding relates to the quantity and quality of stored references (as well as to quality of perception), and the complexity of the associations made with them. For example, the first time I heard the term "web page", I had no understanding of the term (term being synonymous with symbol). After seeing one on a computer on a TV news story, I had an idea of some type of document similar to a word processing document - not inaccurate, but still showing a lack of understanding. However, after coming to school, surfing the web myself, and listening to a few lectures briefly covering the topic, I developed a reasonably firm grasp as to what a "web page" was, though still not as deep of an understanding as my roommate who took a class on designing web pages. I had significant first-hand perception of web pages. I had been told by teachers and friends what one was. And most of this was stored in my memory for future reference, so I can easily recall different characteristics of web pages, as well as associate them with other related data.

Now, by taking these two definitions and applying them to normal, healthy humans, we see that humans are thinking, understanding beings. We also can apply these two definitions to even our current computers. The difference being only that computers are currently far behind humans in complexity of understanding and in depth of perception. We cannot deny that computers