Axiom of Deep Thinking [phil. of prog.]

Can machines think?

Abstract

We study the question originally (not) asked by Alan Turing in his seminal paper 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence' published in the philosophical journal Mind (1950).

The Axiom of Deep Thinking is defined for a semantics where "deep thinkers" effect the pan-universal as they study/perceive it: Examples - Cantor, Godel, Christ, Neo [fictional]. The term "deep thinker" has no single tangible definition (as yet) but the various definitions used in this field (philosophy of programming and overlaps with computational philosophy and philosophy of the mind) do agree with certain key observations. A Deep Thinker must have studied/meditated/conjugated on a previously unstudied topic to such a powerful effect that the pan-universal was mutated by them. The pan-universal is a well known term so I will just reiterate breifly by referring examples in popular mathematical culture: The Book (Paul Erdos) and The Infinite Mind (Gaisi Takeuti).

Our in depth study is Alan Turing: His homosexuality was a key point in our study and motivates our conclusion (and proof). As a homosexual he would not be (physically) capable of producing offspring. The only way for a human to create a thinking intelligent machine is by sexual reproduction: Whether this was concious to Turing is not known. This effect permeated all his work and the drastic side effect (unforseen by him) was that his Deep Thinking rendered the future creation of AI permenantly impossible.

Conclusion: We have produced another example of Deep Thinking which has helped add much to the credibility of the theory. We beleive the theory of Deep Thinking to be universally accepted in the logic community before long. The repercussions of Turings Deep Thinking have been extremely vast and harmful to the human race: We do leave this topic for a further study, but offer a quote from Asimov as a lamenting afterthought: "I beleive that AI is essential to the survival of the human race."

What is your understanding of a "better search engine" I wonder, and what adaption does it have to reality? That is, which search engine would you say is "good enough" (for some value to be enough)? If the answers google, read this: Google recently has changed its search engine to help wikipedia. Wikipedia has a major bandwidth problem and it strives to keep it low, that's why there's the "star" feature which makes an article read only for most users. These stars are given based on bandwidth consumption for the particular article (notice the calculations are more sophisicated than the sum of bytes transfered, since that'd mean a long article or an article with lots of media would rank high much easier than corresponding short one). If the article gets visited a lot, then it gets the star. Also, don't forget that Wikipedia does not stand alone on the matter of its existence, else it'd be dead time ago. Another problem of Wikipedia is that it got linked too much - simply too many people reference Wikipedia. Google ranked it higher than any other link in most results for which there was an article for it. That of course is something good, because wikipedia articles are up to par (for NON-technical endeavors). But google is massive, and wikipedia had to look for a way to free itself from such heavy weight put on its shoulders by google. The contract roughly was:
Articles which address diachronic concepts or factualities are still ranked on top; (th. Wikipedia dominates the academia using google), Therefore, articles which are regularly changed (in content, not appearance), such as present pseudo-historic commentary, trends, fashion, products, etc get a lower ranking; in particularly, there's a minimum 2 ranks distance (wikipedia is bound to the third position or lower, depending on its relevance to the query and of course the competitor websites which demand a place higher than WK), and other websites get to have their content 'highlighted'. That pleases both Wikipedia and everyone who was unpleased with the mass of Wikipedia (every advertising agency, even google). So you can see how this occured. Google became biased, more than it was before, if any. Lo - search engines return scrambled information: you have to fiddle through it with some criteria and judge.