Nine possible objections to the view that machines may be intelligent.

Nine possible objections to the view that machines may be intelligent

I’ve done some thinking and reading about free will and whether or not humans are just highly complex machines or whether we have a soul which ultimately governs our behavior.

One way to look at the problem is to see if it is possible to build a machine which behaves as a human would. If the machine behaves as a human would does that mean that God gave the machine a soul?

It’s a difficult question to answer. Isaac Asimov and other authors have written about machines that think and behave like humans. Alan Turing devised a simple test to determine if a machine is capable of producing intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human.

The Consortium on Cognitive Science Instruction has published an article by Peter Bradley listing nine possible objections to the view that machines may be intelligent.

Read the article here:

Perpetual Motion

Wikipedia says, ‘[a] perpetual motion machine of the first kind [is] a “hypothetical machine which, once activated, would continue to function and produce work” indefinitely with no input of energy. There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.’

Is the universe a perpetual motion machine? If not, then it will ‘run down’ eventually and it has not been ‘running’ forever. Who or what ‘activated’ the universe?

Google Maps Places

The stars on this map represent places that I have saved to my Google Maps address book. Most of these places I have visited, others are truck stops that were along routes I drove. A few stars are for places that I just found interesting.


Where did we come from?

I believe that the universe, as we understand it today, began to exist. But what does it mean to begin to exist? Does it mean the universe came from nothing?

William L. Craig uses the word exist in an article on his website in an interesting way.

“You must have been caused to begin to exist (perhaps precisely by the prior interaction of your material constituents!).”[1]


Apparently things can begin to exist (perhaps) by the interaction of material constituents.

In his Reasonable Faith podcast from November 17, 2013 at 5:05 minutes Craig says that the Kalam Cosmological “Argument as I’ve framed it leaves it entirely open as to whether the cause works with or without a material cause.”[2]


So the universe began to exist, but according to Craig nothing precludes the first cause from working with a material cause.

However, elsewhere he says that Christian theology is committed to creation from nothing.

“When we say that the matter and energy were created out of nothing, we mean merely that, although created, they were not created out of anything.”[3]


The Kalam Cosmological Argument states:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Craig uses the Cosmological Argument to show that God must exist because he is the cause of the universe. But did the universe come into existence out of nothing or from some sort of preexisting substance?


Divine Simplicity

"He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17 NASB

If God exists and is holding the universe together and he knows all of our thoughts then it would seem to me that God is at least as complex as the universe. Yet many Christian thinkers say that God is simple. He is not made up of multiple parts. This is an interesting idea. What do you think? Is God simple or complex?


Embedded Link

Divine simplicity – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is without parts. The general idea of divine simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to the “attributes” of God…

The Zebra Puzzle

There are five houses.
The Englishman lives in the red house.
The Spaniard owns the dog.
Coffee is drunk in the green house.
The Ukrainian drinks tea.
The green house is immediately to the right of the ivory house.
The Old Gold smoker owns snails.
Kools are smoked in the yellow house.
Milk is drunk in the middle house.
The Norwegian lives in the first house.
The man who smokes Chesterfields lives in the house next to the man with the fox.
Kools are smoked in the house next to the house where the horse is kept. [should be “… a house …”, see discussion below]
The Lucky Strike smoker drinks orange juice.
The Japanese smokes Parliaments.
The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.

Now, who drinks water? Who owns the zebra? In the interest of clarity, it must be added that each of the five houses is painted a different color, and their inhabitants are of different national extractions, own different pets, drink different beverages and smoke different brands of American cigarets [sic]. One other thing: in statement 6, right means your right.

Zebra Puzzle – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I recently installed FlightGear flight simulator for Linux

For users who are not pilots recommends reading about what it's like to become a real pilot.  They recommended this link at Gleim Publications.

Gleim Aviation: Learn to Fly: Introductory Flight

An introductory flight is an amazing opportunity for you to experience flying. Most flight schools and instructors charge a reduced rate for an introductory flight. Just call a local flight school and…