Instigator / Pro
1
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Topic
#2707

Machines can, in theory, think.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

-Full resolution- In theory, it is possible to create a machine which is capable of thinking in a similar manner to humans

-Definition-
Possible = Something of which has a chance to occur
Machine = a mechanically, electrically, or electronically operated device for performing a task
Human = of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

Wagyu's burden of proof: "Machines can, in theory, think. "
Contender's burden of proof: "Machines can, in theory, not think. "

-General Rules-
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Since this is a thought experiment, sources are not essential
3. Burden of Proof is shared

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro has, in effect, created a truism for a resolution by attempt to demonstrate the debate turns on a single word: theory. This is as if any theory will stand scrutiny, ignoring that a theory sets up experimental criteria that, in order to pass muster, must be reproducible and repeatable. Science demands these qualities even if the debate is a “thought experiment.”

Argument: Pro’s resolution sets a standard that even Pro fails to uphold, losing ground in just the second round by claiming: “It is impossible for a machine to be identical to a human being.” Pro has thus discounted his resolution’s “theory,” admitting that, after all, the “thought experiment” cannot reproduce and repeat the experiment that “Machines can, in theory, think like humans.”
Pro fails to define what he mans by a “thought experiment,” and, by the lack, repeats the mantra that theory can accomplish anything one proposes, supporting the failure of the scientific method applied to a theory.

By contrast, in Con’s first round, his rebuttal applies the clear separation of mind and body function, which Pro ignores as a necessary factor [in fact, Pro challenges that “mind” is a “dualist” vs. “monist” feature, and that the monist feature considers mind “should certainly not make a difference to my analogy,” and even “fails to see the distinction.” Con further argues by philosophy, contradiction, free will, and logic against Pro’s resolution.

Pro counters Con’s argument in R2 that the resolution “…clearly states this is a thought experiment where we are discussing things on a purely hypothetical level.” No, it does not. Pro later makes the claim, but, as said, never defines his term, so, the resolution stands as a definitive statement as a theory that must stand up to scientific methodology, not mere hypothesis without physical experiment.

Pro rebuts Con’s philosophy argument by refuting the existence of mind, yet fails to see the distinction between a living and dead human body, ignoring that the living being thinks, and the dead does not.

Pro rebuts Con’s contraction argument [the mind must be discarded] by claiming “I have argued this is not the case, yet sides with the monist statement that mind does not exist.

Pro drops Con’s free will argument by the simple claim, unsubstantiated by argument other than that the free will does not exist by claim that thinking is like seeing. These are entirely different functions.

Pro buries his argument by two contradicting phrases: “With perfect technology, we can do quite literally anything,” which is followed by [a bit later] “this is not a debate about technological possibilities, but about whether theoretically, this is possible.”

Pro’s R3 violates his own rule against new argument in the last round by raising Descartes and Occam’s razor. Further, he offers “rest in peace” to his argument in R3 “I just feel that a thing like thought cannot be simulated.”

I conclude Con wins the Argument.

Sourcing: Pro offers very little in sourcing, claiming it unnecessary in a “thought experiment,” yet offers a source on the Kardashev Scale in R2, and summarily disagrees with his source that a Type III civilization, at a galactic level, is “impossible to conceive,” ignoring that Kardashev proposes two additionally advanced types. Sloppy and contradictory use of sourcing. Con’s sources systematically support his arguments and rebuttals, such as his rebuttal of AI-hard, and more particularly by his defining of neuron, cell, and think. Con wins the points.

Legibility: Pro’s reversals of argument [as demonstrated in Argument, above] loses his legibility point. Con’s argument, is consistent, growing, and crushing in consistent and followable language. Points to Con.

Conduct: Co duct was respectful on both sides. Tie.