In my eyes intelligence is the ability to create and intake new information about things previously unknown to said in-taker. This would include the ability to create hypothesis’ and find a conclusion without the input of another being, while also being able to recall data others have created to push and further thought. Thought is a bit more complicated to define than intelligence, I see it as that voice in your head when planning out your day; which cereal would be better for the morning, doing math without scratch paper, and other mundane tasks. On a more complex level it is also when you need to answer questions that are not strictly yes or no, when trying to decide whether to turn left instead of right and when these decisions should define
…show more content…
A machine passing as a human is merely showing how up to par the electronics wiring operations are and ability of the programming, not based off of an actual observation or comprehending done by a computer. It can’t study its subject and then do as a human does, it just carries out the actions that were input to its system which could include human like characteristics; such as pausing to solve an equation or getting a random answer wrong every few questions. So if a computer successfully played the game, (convincing the judge that it was a person and that its opponent, a computer) it wouldn’t have a meaning. Only that the person guessing may have been a horid judge of character or the human was brilliant at the game and convinced the judge they were the computer, the possibilities could go on forever, none of which require any sort of intellect (machine or otherwise) from the …show more content…
The objection is all about how ‘Humans create machines so machine’s limits are also human’s limits’ and that anything that can be said for what machines are capable of, can be said for humanity as well. The objection proclaims that “Machines can never take us by surprise” this is true and false, it is true because we know what individual machines can manage. For instance, you apprehend that a blender will create a smoothie, nobody expects it to heat up food as microwaves do. It is false because when you envision how quickly people are changing the idea of machinery and advancing technology, proving that they may inspire awe and certainly surprise us. It should be stated that the main similarity between our opinions is that we both point out how machines can never progress further than humans will allow. This is equivalent to saying that a machine can never have greater knowledge than the collective population, and since the knowledge is only a part of why humans can be considered unique a machine can pass its intelligence as human, though it itself could never
A machine passing as a human is merely showing how up to par the electronics wiring operations are and ability of the programming, not based off of an actual observation or comprehending done by a computer. It can’t study its subject and then do as a human does, it just carries out the actions that were input to its system which could include human like characteristics; such as pausing to solve an equation or getting a random answer wrong every few questions. So if a computer successfully played the game, (convincing the judge that it was a person and that its opponent, a computer) it wouldn’t have a meaning. Only that the person guessing may have been a horid judge of character or the human was brilliant at the game and convinced the judge they were the computer, the possibilities could go on forever, none of which require any sort of intellect (machine or otherwise) from the …show more content…
The objection is all about how ‘Humans create machines so machine’s limits are also human’s limits’ and that anything that can be said for what machines are capable of, can be said for humanity as well. The objection proclaims that “Machines can never take us by surprise” this is true and false, it is true because we know what individual machines can manage. For instance, you apprehend that a blender will create a smoothie, nobody expects it to heat up food as microwaves do. It is false because when you envision how quickly people are changing the idea of machinery and advancing technology, proving that they may inspire awe and certainly surprise us. It should be stated that the main similarity between our opinions is that we both point out how machines can never progress further than humans will allow. This is equivalent to saying that a machine can never have greater knowledge than the collective population, and since the knowledge is only a part of why humans can be considered unique a machine can pass its intelligence as human, though it itself could never