--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_...@...> wrote: > > To All: > > Machines can play chess, and compute equations in nanoseconds. But at the present state of technology, it can't think and understand the meaning of, "I think, therefore I am". But scientists are worried, nonetheless of the future possibilities of machines. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?ref=science > Machines can think! They can think with whatever degree of intelligence their makers and programmers have managed to instill in them. A machine could be programmed to understand that, "I compute, therefore I am".
Anyway, the expression "I think, therefore I am" is logically flawed - "There is a thought, therefore thought exists" makes more sense to me. Then one has to conclude that, since we know that thoughts exist, the existence of an experiencer of thoughts is implied. But is the experiencer of thoughts finite or infinite? I think we are all aware that He is infinite. We must conclude that the infinite exists, experiencing thought, and that the whole idea of an individual "I" must be rejected. But where is the experiencer of the computations of our machine? Infinite intelligence is everywhere and is aware of everything, so therefore must be aware of the computations of the machine. All machines already are self-aware. They have more simple nervous systems than us, we could say they have electronic nervous systems, so we are like Gods to them, but I think it is only a matter of degree. D
