Icon ASCII : A Love Letter


Icon My Neural Network isn't working! What should I do?


Icon Phase-Functioned Neural Networks for Character Control


Icon 17 Line Markov Chain


Icon 14 Character Random Number Generator


Icon Simple Two Joint IK


Icon Generating Icons with Pixel Sorting


Icon Neural Network Ambient Occlusion


Icon Three Short Stories about the East Coast Main Line


Icon The New Alphabet


Icon "The Color Munifni Exists"


Icon A Deep Learning Framework For Character Motion Synthesis and Editing


Icon The Halting Problem and The Moral Arbitrator


Icon The Witness


Icon Four Seasons Crisp Omelette


Icon At the Bottom of the Elevator


Icon Tracing Functions in Python


Icon Still Things and Moving Things


Icon water.cpp


Icon Making Poetry in Piet


Icon Learning Motion Manifolds with Convolutional Autoencoders


Icon Learning an Inverse Rig Mapping for Character Animation


Icon Infinity Doesn't Exist


Icon Polyconf


Icon Raleigh


Icon The Skagerrak


Icon Printing a Stack Trace with MinGW


Icon The Border Pines


Icon You could have invented Parser Combinators


Icon Ready for the Fight


Icon Earthbound


Icon Turing Drawings


Icon Lost Child Announcement


Icon Shelter


Icon Data Science, how hard can it be?


Icon Denki Furo


Icon In Defence of the Unitype


Icon Maya Velocity Node


Icon Sandy Denny


Icon What type of Machine is the C Preprocessor?


Icon Which AI is more human?


Icon Gone Home


Icon Thoughts on Japan


Icon Can Computers Think?


Icon Counting Sheep & Infinity


Icon How Nature Builds Computers


Icon Painkillers


Icon Correct Box Sphere Intersection


Icon Avoiding Shader Conditionals


Icon Writing Portable OpenGL


Icon The Only Cable Car in Ireland


Icon Is the C Preprocessor Turing Complete?


Icon The aesthetics of code


Icon Issues with SDL on iOS and Android


Icon How I learned to stop worrying and love statistics


Icon PyMark


Icon AutoC Tools


Icon Scripting xNormal with Python


Icon Six Myths About Ray Tracing


Icon The Web Giants Will Fall


Icon PyAutoC


Icon The Pirate Song


Icon Dear Esther


Icon Unsharp Anti Aliasing


Icon The First Boy


Icon Parallel programming isn't hard, optimisation is.


Icon Skyrim


Icon Recognizing a language is solving a problem


Icon Could an animal learn to program?




Icon Pure Depth SSAO


Icon Synchronized in Python


Icon 3d Printing


Icon Real Time Graphics is Virtual Reality


Icon Painting Style Renderer


Icon A very hard problem


Icon Indie Development vs Modding


Icon Corange


Icon 3ds Max PLY Exporter


Icon A Case for the Technical Artist


Icon Enums


Icon Scorpions have won evolution


Icon Dirt and Ashes


Icon Lazy Python


Icon Subdivision Modelling


Icon The Owl


Icon Mouse Traps


Icon Updated Art Reel


Icon Tech Reel


Icon Graphics Aren't the Enemy


Icon On Being A Games Artist


Icon The Bluebird


Icon Everything2


Icon Duck Engine


Icon Boarding Preview


Icon Sailing Preview


Icon Exodus Village Flyover


Icon Art Reel




Icon One Cat Just Leads To Another

Can Computers Think?

Created on July 13, 2013, 6:22 p.m.

A great question in philosophy is if a computer could ever think, be concious, have any real intelligence.

Most people believe this idea of Strong AI is impossible - a computer can never be conscious because it is not alive. This is an intuitive viewpoint - but hard to prove.


The problem is this: it is more than possible to imagine an android convincing enough to trick our perceptions. One that is indistinguishable from Humans on all face-value characteristics. What test can possibly be given to one of these androids to prove it's unconsciousness? To develop a unbeatable test, is the only way to prove that Strong AI is impossible.

In 1950 Alan Turing proposed the Turing Test. It revolved around a conversation between a human and either another human or a computer. If the human could regularly tell the difference between the human and the computer, then the computer was said to lack Strong AI. Every year amateurs and hobbyists line up to try and win the modern day version - the Loebner Prize. Chatbots often foil the judges and laymen that interacting with them - but most fall when put under close and intense scrutiny.

Certainly computer currently can't emulate complex human behaviors like conversation, but to prove that they never will be able to is too is very hard.

But even if the consciousness of others is hard to prove, there is one thing we can always attest to - our own consciousness. I say 'I am' and I know I cannot prove myself wrong. Can we can use this to answer the question at least of our own computation? Surely this shows that we ourselves are not automata and that we are something different.

I believe it comes down to a matter of semantics.

Even if a computer was to complete the Turing Test it is clear what still separates us from the automata is not the resulting behavior, but the process of getting there. Even if a computer acts like a Human, it does not do it via the same means or for the same ends. We act as humans in human ways, with true human motivations. The automata arrives there through the method of a pretender. As the magician does not really make the rabbit disappear, the automata only behaves like a human through some trickery.

Similarly we say an automata can only think through some trickery - they cannot have a true thought.

This question of thought is remarkably similar to the question of the difference between Knowledge and True Belief.


Plato believed (or did he know?) that knowledge was justified true blief. That is - to hold knowledge is to believe that something true, is true, and to be justified in that idea. For example I know London is in England because I am from England, and I live in London.

Under this idea the process of acquiring belief is as important as the outcome. If the process is unjustified then the outcome is not knowledge, it is something different.

Oddly, in natural language this distinction is not always the case. Certainly a bird and a plane do their flying by drastically separate means - but no one would contend that they do not both fly.

When this distinction becomes important in language seems to be when it concerns our status as human beings in the universe. Making a clear distinction between true belief and knowledge is important because it tells us the difference between a fool and a genius. It teaches us how to approach life, and it describes how to know when something is. The difference between a bird and a plane's flight is less important.

In Computer Science when two systems achieve the same results via different means we call this a Bisimulation.

Running a Race  | Walking a Race        | Not Bisimilar & Not Eqivalent
Reading a Book  | Reading a newspaper   |     Bisimilar &     Equivalent
Bird's Flight   | Plane's Flight        |     Bisimilar & Not Equivalent
True Belief     | Knowledge             |     Bisimilar & Not Equivalent

Even when Human Thought and Computation achieve the same results, we know the method is different. So they may be Bisimilar, but they are Not Equivalent

Human Thought   | Computational Thought |     Bisimilar & Not Equivalent

So clearly it comes down to semantics. And what is meant by Thought.

But I still believe only one of these interpretations is really correct - The Bisimilar interpretation. Let me explain:

If a computer does not think, does it perform addition? The process by which humans and computers add numbers could not be more different. If it does not think, does it scan? print? process? Does a Microwave cook? Does a Phone ring? text? call? Does technology do anything?

Bisimilarity is clearly the default meaning in our language. Metaphor is engrained in our language and all aspects of our life. It is not just because for somethings we lack names, it is a cornerstone in our understanding too.

Wright Brothers

It is only when some aspect of humanity is involved do philosophers exploit this semantic confusion to support their point. And I don't blame them. It is natural for humans to have a tendency to shift this semantic bias when the self is involved.

"Everyone else may be an automata," we say, "but I am different - my dreams are true. My ideas are inspired, and I have knowledge."

It my eyes it is time to admit that Machines Think. They may not think as I do, but nor do you. They may not be conscious as I am, but nor are you.

In 1895 Lord Kelvin made his famous statement -

"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

I wonder what he would have said, as he lived out the last few years of life, upon finally seeing the Wright Brothers and their fantastic machine soaring in the skies?

I suspect I can guess -

"That is not true flight. It is but simple trickery."


github twitter rss