Can A Machine Know? Options

[Relient]

Topic. <_< Interesting. I wrote a bit on my TOK essay.



" For centuries, humankind has relied on the help of various tools to help out with the everyday trials of life. After years and years, humans have finally developped a specialized type of tool. This specific group has one function: transmitting or modifying energy in order to perform a specific function. These went on to be classified as machines. As time went by, the technological structures of machines became more enhanced and was expanded furthur. The most basic and simple machines like the lever soon became cemented in everyday activities taken for granted such as wheels for the rolling movement of an automobile. One may define a machine as another definition as well: it may be also used as a slang for a "computer". This is, possibly, one of the best definitions to define in context what the subject of this impending question of this essay is: can a machine know? A machine cannot, in reality, know, because it itself is programmed in a certain way to perform a certain task.

When programmed to execute and carry out a specific task, it is certain to say the least that it follows a set routine. For example, on a computer, there is a specific command that an individual can run on a DOS-prompt by typing "dir"1. This command itself allows a specific user to browse the files on a certain section of a computer's hard drive. This is a command that is pre-programmed. A computer, being a type of machine, can not fully "know" what the command it: it can only follow the command directive and carry out the objective. This process itself can be compared and likened to a simple game of "follow-the-leader". The objective of "follow-the-leader" is to completely mimic and mime the leader's actions as best as possible. However, since computers are prone of its incapability of generating a mistake, it would seem that the computer would always be able to follow instructions, as long as the user has inputted out the commands correctly.

Knowledge, on the other hand, is the noun form of its verb counterpart word "know". Websters dictionary define "knowledge" itself as "the fact or condition of being aware of something; the range of one's information or understanding".2 As you look more into detail about the basic functioning equipment of a computer, data storage can be categorized by RAM (Random Access Memory) or ROM (Read-only Memory). RAM is easily erasable after the computer shuts off, so because of this, early computers could not store any data. ROM was introduced in the 1980's, and rapidly changed the way old computers dependant on using paper punchcards as given commands were opreated. Even to this day, since ROM space has been a revolutionary addition to computer technology, the possibility of knowledge on a machine is infinitely impossible. One might compare a computer's ROM to a file cabinent. The file cabinent itself cannot organize and sort the files stored in itself. It requires a third-party in order to sort, organize, and add or remove various files and folders residing in itself. Similarily, a computer cannot delete or create certain applications without the input of command by a third-party.

A machine itself can take in information, but it cannot ever refute it. For example, a graphing calculator can be programmed to display that 1+1 equals 3. The graphing calculator itself can not deny the validity of this statement. Artificial intelligence can not find the cure for an incurable disease by itself. Scientists must be at hand to analyze the data processed by the machine and test out the results. Machines do not suffer from physical diseases, so they would not be able to physically weigh the side effects of an experimental drug accurately.

There are also ways to fool a machine. In 1997, a chess computer developped by IBM was exhibited in a game against then-prominent chessmaster Garry Kasparov3. The final results of the match were 3.5 to 2.5, in favor of the chess computer. If a machine was so knowledgable, would it be able to win all of the matches completely? A similar case is shown in the chess match between chessmaster Michael Adams and the sophisticated chess computer Hydra. Hydra won 5 games and tied the last.3 The artificial intelligence fails to clean sweep human intelligence. But why would this be possible? Perhaps the programming of the machines
experienced a miniscule flaw. Machines can not be perfect: they can only follow their programming. If a machine could use the various aspects of knowledge, would not they be able to see a different solution? For example, in a game of chess, if a pawn is moved forward on the openning, a machine would make the exact same move everytime that same pawn is used, because it is programmed to respond in such a manner. It does not make a different move in order to use a degree of psychology to fool the opponent.

Without various ways of "knowing", a machine cannot know. A machine can not feel emotion. If you crash a car into a streetlamp, the car will not start to cry out of emotion. A machine can not reason. It can only agree with the programming given. A machine can use, to some degree, some language, but even then, it is programmed. A radio can pick up radio frequencies and play them, but a radio can not create its own music. A machine can not perceive the various surroundings around it, so it is subsceptible to its own given commands.

In the distant future, I would doubt that a machine can be given commands to "know". Even when a command is given, it is still just a command, and not out of free will. This still leaves us with a sense of autonomity that these machines continue to use: they depend solely on our commands. "


I should add something, but what?

[KissMe2408]

This should probably be in the school/homework section...

_MOVED TO SCHOOL_

[EddieV]

I'm confused.

[*mzkandi*]

I'm going to assume you've turned this assignment in by now, if not, pm me about reopening this.

Topic Closed.