Do computers have minds?

[Johnnymushio]

Just curious what you guys think, seeing as most of you are programmers.

[Twey]

The concept of "mind" is a simplification. Since we can never (as far as we're scientifically aware) interact directly with another mind, to say that another being has a mind is to say that it appears, by its outward actions, to exhibit what we call volition. Current computers don't necessarily fit this description, but it certainly doesn't exclude the concept.

[djr33]

Computers use a predetermined set of commands to react; they are doing a very finite action and make no mistakes or deviations. Even "random" operations are simply based on math, calculations, etc.
As a result, no, not really.
Artificial Intelligence does not yet exist (as far as is known, I suppose), and may never exist. When it does, this question could really be asked. But, again, it would simply be a long running program reacting to input.
But, I guess, the better question, do people have minds or are we just complex programs?

[tech_support]

Computers can have minds. It depends on your point of view. It needs to be taken care of (like a dog or a kid), needs to be taught (programming), fed (when the computer's hungry for more RAM, you give it more and it runs faster... just like when you give a child a sports drink... it [probably] performs faster), the more things you give it [USBs, Printers, Software etc.], the slower it'll get (like filling up a child's backpack with junk... the child will walk slower) and all that.

But one crucial difference is, computers can't think for themselves.

[djr33]

Isn't a mind something that let's you think for yourself?
Or, hmm... is this the same question as free will?

[Twey]

But, I guess, the better question, do people have minds or are we just complex programs?

Why do you assume it must be one or the other? Define "thinking."

[djr33]

Mind = something that has the capability to think?
Ok, that makes things simpler.

Well, thinking is... taking and learning.

Computers don't really learn. They could be programmed to take input and parse it, but that's not in common practice and also encased in a limited environment-- a computer can't just decide it doesn't like math and start reading a book instead.

Computers have no experience while learning or receiving input-- they simply take this and store/analyze/output it. We begin to understand more about it, feel certain emotions and gain insight, etc.

[Twey]

Computers don't really learn. They could be programmed to take input and parse it, but that's not in common practice and also encased in a limited environment-- a computer can't just decide it doesn't like math and start reading a book instead.

Can someone who likes mathematics? If we've been "programmed" to enjoy mathematics, we will enjoy mathematics. You might argue that if we're told that we only enjoy mathematics because, e.g., our parents told us at an early age that mathematics was fun, then we might decide that we didn't like mathematics before and want to do something else instead. However, it could also be argued that telling the person this is a form of reprogramming.

Computers have no experience while learning or receiving input-- they simply take this and store/analyze/output it. We begin to understand more about it, feel certain emotions and gain insight, etc.

How do you know? I can't experience your emotions, the only reason I'd know you feel, e.g., happy, is because you tell me that you're feeling happy and I equate that word with the emotion I occasionally feel to deduce what you must be feeling. There's nothing to stop me programming a computer to tell me it's happy; then I'd have no logical grounds to conclude otherwise.

[molendijk]

Do computers have minds? Difficult question. You will have to do a lot of defining in order to be able to start answering.
So let's make it too simple first. We only have to define 'alive'.
1. X has a mind --> X is alive.
2. X is a computer --> X isn't alive.
----------------------------
Conclusion: computers don't have minds (because p --> q is equivalent to notq --> notp), whereas humans possibly have.

Arie Molendijk.

[boogyman]

you would than have to define "alive"

to define alive you need to come together with a very rudimentary set of things that must be found.
1) breath / consume energy.
humans - oxygen
computers - electricity
plants - carbon dioxide

2) output / emissions
humans - words / actions / carbon dioxide / waste
computers - text / heat
plants - nutrients / oxygen

3) growth
humans - size(width&height), brain capacity (memory / processing)
computers - size(RAM&ROM) brain capacity (memory / CPU)
plants - size, brain capacity??? nope i guess they arent alive?

if you can show me something that says a computer does not perform some relative equivalent to humans / plants then I will agree with a computer is not alive... they have a different scale but the result is the same

you probably think of being alive is cognitive behavior, however how do we humans have cognitive behavior? we adapt to our surroundings... we grow in height and width and brains / computers grow in RAM and ROM and CPU. okay so you write that off as not cognitive behavior, well then you need to say that plants are not alive either because they have no cognitive behavior.