Week 3 Blog Reviews

Jessica-


I really enjoyed reading your blogs this week. I feel that you and I share in many of the same beliefs and love being able to read your views on certain topics. I found the article on Minsky to be entertaining but I completly disagreed with his overall idea. I was surprised to read that you too found the concept of a "conscious computer" to be questionable. You made an exceptional point when you emphasized that inorder for a computer to "be aware" or to process, a human being would have to manually enter in the information. I also liked your thoughts on "What is Consciousness?" You clearly explained how something as broad as conciousness could be considered scientific. As previously said I really enjoy reading your blogs. Your writing is detailed but gets to the point.



Jade-


I was thrilled to see that you had answered the other possible question. I liked being able to compare my thoughts and ideas with yours. I think you did a great job on incorporating pop culture and entertainment, the I- Robot was a smart connection. I disagreed with Minsky, but oddly enough found myself agreeing with the main points of your blog. I guess anything really is possible and technology does seem to have endless possiblities. You know your'e a good writer if you can persuade the reader to change their mind about something. Good Job!!!


CAN MACHINES THINK????

Although somewhat confusing and repetitive, Robert Wright’s essay focuses on one major question, “Can Computers Think?” Wright introduces his article by discussing the chess tournament between experienced competitor Garry Kasparov and IBM’s chess program Deep Blue. Kasparov was determined to win in order to defend the “human dignity” as he proclaimed. The chess match, human versus machine brings to light the issue of computers and their overall capabilities. When a machine is able to complete a task just as a human would is it thinking? And if the computer can think what is preventing it from reasoning or having a conscious? These unanswered questions are the key ingredients to Wright’s article. As Wright points out, Deep Blue’s chess playing skills were never doubted it was the notion that the program was actually “thinking” for itself that launches the debate.



Despite the continuing progress of technology, Wright says that people still hold the belief that machines in fact cannot think. His article explains that such people categorize thinking as an emotion. With this being said an emotion can only be experience by a living breathing being, something that has consciousness. He uses Deep Blue and Kasparov as a prime example. When Kasparov lost his first game he was sad and upset. Would Deep Blue have felt or thought these feelings upon losing? Most individuals would answer no but, as Wright’s article talks about, could this change?





The article goes on to explore the debate between Chalmers and Daniel Dennett. Chalmers, a professor of philosophy and Dennett a well known philosopher have argued over the concept of consciousness. Chalmers sees consciousness as “a deeper puzzle than many philosophers have realized.” (Wright 142) Dennett on the other hand is convinced that as far as consciousness is concerned “the puzzle has been reduced to “a set of manageable problems.” (Wright 142) The issues concerning this debate intertwine with Wright’s key points. Depending on how someone may view consciousness ultimately sways their decision on whether or not our computers are thinking.