Can Computers Represent all of Human Knowledge?

Through evaluating my use of the computer this week I was able to further realize how dependant I am on a computer to get through a normal day. Having a job where I sit in front of a computer all day long is a major factor in that equation, but also examining my personal use of the computer reinforces the notion that I am fairly dependant on a computer in my day-to-day activities.
Part of the reason why we as a society have become dependent on the computer in our daily lives, especially at work, is the computer’s ability to complete tasks faster and to allow us more efficient use of our time by harnessing the power of the computer. In some aspects you could state the computer can represent basic functions of human tasks. For example, if you are an accountant and didn’t have a computer available to you then the process of balancing your books would expend more of your time doing it by hand then if you did it by computer.
The fact that in a relatively short amount of time, compared to the total existence of the human race, the computer has been developed and innovated to the point that millions of people rely on it at their jobs is quite an accomplishment!
While doing research on the human mind and computers I stumbled across a great quote on www.authorsden.com. I found the quote at the bottom of an article written by Thomas K. Hyland Jr. and titled “The Human Mind versus The Computer.” (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=13109&id=11570) According to the website, Hyland Jr. last edited this article on Sunday, September 14, 2003. I found the quote Hyland included at the bottom of his article very pertinent to our discussion. According to Hyland, this quote is from John Stuart Mill in his work entitled, “On Liberty” written in 1859.
"Supposing it were possible to get houses built, corn grown, battles fought, causes tried, and even churches erected and prayers said, by machinery -- by automatons in human form -- it would be a considerable loss to exchange for these automatons even the men and women who at present inhabit the more civilised parts of the world, and who assuredly are but starved specimens of what nature can and will produce. Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. "

The fact that Mill had this vision in 1859 of a world where machines could duplicate human function is amazing and shows how far technology has come because of the human mind.. And this is a good segway into summarizing and analyzing the discussion board posts for this week.
Everyone who responded to the question of whether or not computers could imitate all of human knowledge agreed that the ability for computers to process and interpret data at a much faster rate then the human mind allows the computer to replicate some of the basic tasks a human could complete. However, everyone also agreed that the fact computers can not replicate emotion and irrationality makes it impossible for a computer to totally represent all of human knowledge.
“When [it] comes to computers and representing all human knowledge, I think computers thus far come very, very close,” Justin Donarum stated. “Computers can interpret dates, times, locations, can do math quicker than any human and can equate a vast library of terms and info, but the one thing I think computers cannot represent when it comes to all human knowledge is emotion. A computer does not have feelings so it cannot remember past emotions. So, I do not think that computers would be able to go back to the past, or even retrieve memory fragments, illusions, dreams or associations, because there is no emotional point which triggers these thoughts or ideas to the computer.”
“The emotions and creativity aspects of our brain are the features that computer lacks in order to progress to the level of true human knowledge,” stated Rafal Kowalczyk.
The computer’s ability to store and process information far outweighs that of the human brain, however, the difference is the ability to retrieve and utilize that information.
Humans, like computers, can think logically in a step-by-step process. Yet, humans also have the ability for random thoughts and to go off on tangents that are initiated by triggering familiar statements or emotions.
“Humans dream, they have memories that come from past experiences, they have ideas, things they want to do,” stated Odile Dilone. “A computer can only collect information that we input in it. It has no personal memory, only information we give it based on or own memories. It cannot dream, or interpret the dreams that we have. It can only use programs to interpret dreams, because someone implanted that information on the computer.”
“I believe computers can query a database of information in either random or preset orders, but can they do it in a correct random order? During conversation subjects change and the conversation usually travels a winding path,” stated Brian Leclerc. “I don’t think a computer could keep up because it requires judgment to continue the conversation.”
I agree with Leclerc’s statement that the a computer can query millions of bits of information stored on database but that it doesn’t posses the ability to relate this information to the random turns of human conversation. However, I think the computer does have the basic ability to retrieve information pertinent to a conversation when this information retrieval is initiated by key words or phrased in conversation. I think this ability is a good starting point to furthering the development of the computer’s conversational ability.
I explained my thought in my post on Thursday, February 9, 2006.
“Since we can have random thoughts pass through our minds that can be triggered by anything, word association, emotional attachment, it would be very hard to program a computer to have a similar response since there isn’t a consistent initiator of these thoughts in the human mind. The closest a computer might be able to get would be to associate a word or phrase with a list of past experiences that could possibly match. Sort of like doing a giant Google search on your own experiences. For example, if I was chatting with an A.I. and the A.I. asked what I did last night I could say that I watched UConn beat Syracuse by 23 points. The computer then could then reference prior UConn wins over Syracuse in order of margin of victory.”
This reference ability is a useful clarifying agent in conversation but that is as far as it goes.
“I think you make a good point, data may be referenced based on past data, but the trick is responding in the right context,” stated Leclerc. “Providing a listing of past wins will not carry the conversation versus adding a comment on the ability of one of the players during the game. This is where I believe the human mind cannot be replicated by a computer. Judging whether or not a comment or data fits the ‘conversation’ is the key. Computers can provide the data (more than the human mind) but fitting the puzzle piece in the right spot is not as simple.”
And this is where the progress of computers imitating all of human knowledge is stopped. I think the tools are there with the ability to process huge data bases, but the key is figuring out how to replicate the random aspects of human communication and the emotional aspects. The computer cannot fully imitate all of human knowledge until this process is figured out. And before a computer can imitate this process, the human computer first must figure out how exactly it works.