I don't know if this is off-thread, or if this entire thread is off-topic, or if it all makes sense somewhere, but...
1. To speak of machines as never being able to think is probably meaningless - by almost any definition of the word, we humans are machines, and it is patently obvious that we think.
2. If you speak only of 'artificial' machines, you are still faced with the problem of defining what you mean by artificial. Let's say you claim it is:
a. a deliberate product
b. one that whould not have occurred 'in the course of nature'
c. one created by humans
Even with all these in mind, a 'test tube' baby fits the bill.
What happens, IMO, in all this discussion of machines, is that same technophobia that Asimov tried to counter with his Three Laws of Robotics. We do not wish to believe that humans can create 'non living' (whatever that term means) entities that demonstrate consciousness.
I deliberately used the word 'demonstrate' in that last sentence, because not one of us, apart from the personal example, has any idea of anybody else possessing consciousness except by an analysis of that person's behaviour. If you judge me to be conscious because of my behaviour, then you must judge as conscious any entity that shows similar behaviour - you cannot have it both ways and stick to some 'essentialist' idea of humanity - particularly given that we only have the words on our screens as evidence of any of the ayleurs' consciousness (though Jackie may get the dubious pleasure of meeting the android called Shanks shortly!).
The only other argument, then, must hinge upon some notion that it is practically impossible to design and programme a non-human entity with the capacity to demonstrate human-like behaviour. To this, some ripostes:
1. We already have computers with storage and processing capacity rivalling, and in fact beating, that of the human brain.
2. With advances in the theory and practice of parallel processing, connectionism, and modular notions of mind (read Pinker, Dennett et al), it would be a brave person who would bet against the creation, within a generation or so, of a non-human entity with the capacity to do a darn sight more than Eliza.
3. The Godelian argument, as recently advanced by Penrose and others, is deeply flawed (discussion available privately, on another thread, or a different board altogether, if wanted).
That's my take, anyway.
the sunshine ("Campaign for silicon rights") warrior
