计算机能思考吗？图1专题3～5：“我们能一直对计算机的思考能力无动于衷吗？”等
Can Computers Think? The History and Status of the Debate - Map 1 of 7
问题3
Issue Area: Should we pretend that computers will never be able to think?
问题域： 我们能一直对计算机的思考能力无动于衷吗？
The link to the part of the map this discussion is about: http://www.macrovu.com/CCTWeb/CCT1/CCTMap1Pretend.html
1. Alan Turing, 1950, Yes, machines can (or will be able to) think.
A computational system can possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding.
I believe that at the end of the century ... one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.
公共起点
59. (Disputing 1) Anticipated by Alan Turing, 1950 The heads-in-the-sand objection. The consequences of machine thought are too dreadful to accept. We should "stick out heads in the sand" and hope that machines will never be able
to think or have souls.
（反驳1）由阿兰·图灵本人在1950年构想 “鸵鸟战术”。机器思维的结果太可怕了。我们应该把头埋在沙子里并希望机器永远无法思考或拥有灵魂。
60. (Disputing 59) Alan Turing, 1950 The transmigration consolidation.The heads-in-the-sand objection is too trivial to deserve a response; consolidation is more appropriate. It may be confronting to believe that souls are passed from humans to machines when humans die by the theological doctrine of the trasmigration of souls.
（反驳59） 阿拉·图灵，1950 灵魂出窍。“鸵鸟战术”不足一驳；灵魂附体比这还更恰当些。听上去很难相信灵魂在人死后——按照神学的灵魂理论——从体内转移到机器里。
问题4
Issue Area: Does God prohibit computers from thinking?
问题域： 上帝阻止计算机思考吗？
The link to the part of the map this discussion is about: http://www.macrovu.com/CCTWeb/CCT1/CCTMap1GodProhibit.html
1. Alan Turing, 1950, Yes, machines can (or will be able to) think.
A computational system can possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding.
I believe that at the end of the century ... one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.
公共起点
61. (Disputing 1) Anticipated by Alan Turing, 1960 The theological objection. Only entities with immortal souls can think. God has given souls to humans, but not to machines. Therefore, humans can think, and computers can't.
（反驳1）由阿兰·图灵自己于1960构想，神学意见。只有具有不朽灵魂的个体才能思考。神将灵魂给予人类，但不是给机械。因此，人能思考，但机器不能。
62. (Disputing 61) Alan Turing, 1950 The theological objection is ungrounded.The view that only humans have souls is as ungrounded and arbitrary as the view that men have souls but women don't. For all we know, in creating thinking machines we may be serving God's ends by providing dwellings for souls He creates. (utterly convincing, a few other ways to justify that including men's creation being able be thought of as part of God's creation as men are created by God -- translator)
（反驳61）阿兰·图灵，1950 神学反驳是没有根据的。这个认为唯有人类具有灵魂的观点是没有根据也是武断的，就像认为男人有灵魂而女人没有一样。因为很显然，通过创建思考机器，我们可能在通过为神所创造的灵魂提供居所而服务于神的意志。
问题5
Issue Area: Can Computers Understand Arithmetic?
问题域： 计算机能理解算术吗？
The link to the part of the map this discussion is about:
http://www.macrovu.com/CCTWeb/CCT1/CCTMap1Arithmetic.html
1. Alan Turing, 1950, Yes, machines can (or will be able to) think.
A computational system can possess all important elements of human thinking or understanding.
I believe that at the end of the century ... one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.
公共起点
Note: An earlier version of this claim was made by Ludwig Wittgenstein in the 1930s and published in Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (1956).
（反驳1） Stanley L. Jake，1969，Fred Dretske，1990 计算机不能做加法，更不用说思考。机器只能在未释义的符号上工作。即使它们在做加法运算，它们只是在捣腾对它们没有意义的符号而已。这些操作只在人类对它们作出解释的时候才有意义。
64. (Disputing 63) Willian Rapaport, 1988 Computers can learn to add.
Computers that possess internal semantic networks (artificial neural network might be one instance -- translator) can learn dialectically in the same way that humans do. Thus, while they do not intrinsically know how to add, they can learn.
（反对63） Willian Rapaport，1988 计算机能学着做加法。含有内部语法网络的计算机能进行像人类一样的辩证学习。因此，尽管他们起先不知道怎么加法，他们可以学习。
65. (Supporting 63) Fred Dretske, 1990 The marijuana-sniffing dog. Computers can't have an adding thought (much less have a more complex thought) because the symbols being added don't have any meaning to the computer, and they don't have any meaning because they don't play a causal role based on that meaning. A trained dog, for example, will wag its tail when it smells marijuana, but (like a robot) it's only responding because it's been trained to do so, not because the meaning of the smell causes it to do that.
（支持63） Fred Dretske, 1990 扫毒狗。计算机不能具有加法算术思维（更何况更为复杂的思维）因为做加法的符号不对计算机具有任何意义，他们不具有意义，因为他们不具备任何有意义的实用价值。例如一个被训练过的狗，会在闻到大麻的时候摇尾巴，不过这只是因为他们知道自己的任务，而是他们被训练（条件反射）成这样。
