Is Computer a Thinking Machine - Admission/Application Essay Example

However, a closer look into human intelligence proves that human intelligence is not the result of following well-defined rules, but violating it intelligently. For example, a politician’s son may decide not to enter politics as he observes that the field of politics is losing its charm and instead decide to become a pilot. However, there is no such computer that shows such a preference. In other words, a computer that functions in the accounts section of an office is unlikely to claim even after years and years of experience that it would prefer to work in the front office as the work is easier there.

In other words, human intelligence does not lie in following a set of rules but in manipulating it observing the environment around him and also by predicting what is to come. This does not happen with a computer, for example, even if a computer is attacked by a virus for a number of times, it does not develop any new system on its own to counter the attack if an anti-virus is not installed by a human. However, as the old saying goes, even a burnt child dreads fire’ and will run away from fire. . l intelligence because great Galileo was acting in blatant violation of the existing social truth, thus in total contradiction with what Pinker claims as intelligence.

In other words, it is not possible to totally agree with the opinion that intelligence is truth-obeying, rational decision because human intelligence, historically, has been of continuous improvement drawing new equations, elongating the existing ones, and through trial and error. It is rather clear that human intelligence is looking for and assimilating information and setting itself right even against what is considered ‘rational’ or ‘truth’ at that point of time. However, what makes people take such irrational decisions as Galileo and Socrates did is what Pinker tries to deny in his next point.

According to Pinker, intelligence is not the result of any spirit, but it comes from information input (530). However, this is too weak a proposition to believe and too superficial in nature. For example, if that claim is right, all the social reformers are highly unintelligent and irrational in nature. Even if someone claims that those people were acting according to the information input they received from somewhere, one can see that the information they received was too little that other people did not notice it, and hence, a computer is only likely to identify it as a possible threat to the existing ‘truth’ software.

In simple terms, computer does not possess the ability to prioritize information, and hence can never be an antagonist. Admittedly, as Pinker claims, a computer is the ‘most legalistic, persnickety, unforgiving demander of precision’ (539). However, there lies the shortcoming of computer too. As he claims, it sticks to the existing norms and never accepts changes on its own