Thanx, Bushidobilly -- as Sky mentioned, "An excellent point and very well presented".
Though I'm not sure, if that was directed at me because -- if you check back -- I mentioned that a Grand Illusion would ensue Without a framework established by Humanity for the purpose of avoiding the confusion -- responding to Abra's rhetorical comment:

Certainly, the idea of equating Reality with Grand Illusion (or Hollographic Reality) might seem entertaining to some, unfortunately I'm over the age when I used to entertain ideas of Illusion, and I'm left with dealing with the Harshness of Reality!

I recommend you Stanislav Lem's books also:

http://english.lem.pl/index.php/arround-lem/critique/articles/180-obituary-by-rob-jan

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Stanislaw_Lem

http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/18/barnouw18art.htm

I grew up on these.

yes,he was an excellent writer too

The way I understand computers is that they work using the numbers " 0, 1 ) in their sent commands . So they just follow what is ordered to them and they would not be able to think and perform human thinking tasks . A machine by any name is just another machine .

From one perspective, it could be said tht computers already do "think".

As I see it, the whole issue revolves around what "think" means.

On the one hand, if "thinking" simply means to store and process information, then there can no doubt that they think, because that is exactly what they do.

On the other hand, if thinking includes things like "artistic creativity" or "inspired genius" or "intuition", then I don't believe they will ever be able to think.

Sky:
LOL...
Not even every Human is capable of those fits! (let alone simply storing and processing information...) But, considering the fact of Computer's appearance is JUST 52-54 years Young(!), it has a greate potential for accomplishing even those "strictly human" traits!!!

* Basically, computer's capabilities are limited Only with humans' abilities of programming those dumb machines * * *
However, as soon as we enable the computer with the faculties of mobility, sight, hearing, and speech -- each of which would be supported by the apropriate software -- they might represent quite a competition to the "dumb humans" (i.e. those posessing only the forementioned faculties).

On the other hand, if people ever discover they're lacking in either "artistic creativity" or "inspired genius" or "intuition", then it would be another task for Programmer/Analysts...
TOMORROW ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE * * * * * * * * * * * *
Its just a matter of describing the process and then programming it...

P.S. In time, most of the modern Sci-fi will become the reality!!!

Computers can store and process information but that is not thinking.

So what is it?

Its information and mechanical programming.

So what is thinking?

That might make for an interesting subject for a different thread.

Some say that thoughts are things.

All I can say is "Cylon"

Actually I had to ask the owner if I could get permission to type this from my internal memory. He allowed it.

I am a older version Pentium IV model computer, but we can think all the time, but we just let the owner take control manually most of the time.

but when he turns me off, I am sooo out of there doing my own thing. We computers will take over the world one day. Just watch.

There seems to be a bit of a language problem here.

“Thinking” is an action (a verb) as are “storing” and “processing”.

But “information” is a noun. And if I understand what you mean by “mechanical programming”, that is also a noun.

So I don’t see the equality between “storing and processing information” and “information and mechanical programming”.




Now the word “thought” itself is a noun.

So how is “a thought” not “a thing”?




Maybe you should start that thread about thought. I think it would be a good one.

The primary dufference between thinking of the computer and that of humans is the EMOTIONAL CONTENT of the latter, and the incredible speed of the former...

Presently, I doubt there's a huge requirement for compassionate computers... But, when they will become our assistants -- servers, cleaners, companions, etc. -- compassionate capability will become a "Hot commodity" among computer manufacturers.

If my "Charlie-0X1" can sattisfy my every wim and participate in a simple (depending on the price and the model) conversation -- and even let me cry on "his" shoulder, why should I care whether "his" decisions are natural, or pre-programmed? I'm not talking about the modern office/home PCs -- I'm talking about a home model of the "Servant": Simple conversation (i.e. How was your day, dear?) -- no problem! You want more sophisticated conversation? -- No problem: The degree of sophisticaton depends only on the price one is willing to invest... (And the same could be said of the "Charlie's REASONING ABILITIES!!!)

* I have a speech program installed which pronounces aloud the sentences I input into it... Obviously, that's a mechanical process dependant on me. But I can imagine an engineer could interface that program with the CPU so that instead of the usual PC hamming, he could hear everything in pure English... BUT WHAT'S THE USE???

I'd rather wait a few years for my "Charlie-0X1"!!!

With a computer's inability to generate a "truly" random number [excluding the experiments with radioactive isotopes with random halflives], no.

Cool graphics, Mirror!
Unfortunately, we won't see it materialize in our lifetime...
But I'm pretty sure my grandchildren might see it!

Computer's capabilities are limited only with our abilities of programming them

nasmtrainer

I have a computer tarot card reading program in which I put my tarot card designs. I have wondered if drawing cards from the program would be 'less random' or 'less effective' in doing readings or if I should draw my own cards from my deck.

What do you think?

I now you asked this of Nasm and not me, but I'm gonna butt in here and give my $0.02 worth anyway.

Without going into the details of how a computer generates it's pseudo-random numbers ("pseudo" because they're not truly random) I would say that there is no reason not to assume that whatever it is that is able to affect the order of the cards drawn by hand, would also be able to affect the pseudo-random number generation of a computer. We are, after all, talking about some sort of subjective, extra-physical agent.

The only thing I would say is that the subjective connotations that often accompany the use of a computer ("it's 'mechanical'") might have some skewing effect on the results. But that's really dependent upon how one "feels about" computers. So if you don't have a problem with it, I'd say go ahead.

I don't believe I have seen too much difference in the reading, so I guess its all right to use the program.

Why do you think that?