1

The essay that will follow is about the state if a machine can possibly know or
not. I will investigate what do we mean when we say, know and if, compared to the
other areas of knowledge, literature, sciences, mathematics and history a machine
knows.
To begin with I will state the definition of the word know according to the
OXFORD POPULAR THEASURUS 1999. So, to know is to have something in your
memory, to feel certain, to be familiar with, to understand. Generally when someone
knows something, then he/she has the right literary and historical background, in
order to understand an action or an event he has to face. However, except from
dictionary definition, the term to know has many different meanings. For example
when some people say that they know something they may mean that they can predict
it.
When we are talking about a machine we have to deal, basically, with the area
of sciences, as a machine is an achievement of the sciences advance. However we
have to state whether the scientists know, as only then we can state whether a machine
knows. The scientists are people who have studied one or more sciences and have the
basic knowledge that these sciences offer. However when we say that someone knows
we do not only refer to the field that he has studied but generally to have knowledge
about a lot of fields. The only thing we can say for sure is that the machine has the
ability to know everything that has been proved and can possibly be done, as it is able
to store everything that can be transformed into data. However it is not able to
translate the human nature and whatever is inside a human brain. These are not data
that can be known beforehand, so that they can be inserted in the computer. The
human brain holds information in a way that has not be fully discovered by the
scientists, so the computer cannot understand the subconscious or have the productive
thought that a human has. This leads as to the conclusion that the machine knows
everything that has been discovered by the scientists. It is not able to know what a
human knows or thinks about. We can say that the machine can emulate some of the
brain functions in such a way that we can see some kind knowledge or problem
solving. But a computer cannot prove a mathematical theorem or make one up. This
cannot happen because of todays technology. In a article of the philosophical faculty
of oxford about ethics in advanced artificial intelligence, I read that in future
generations, where the term artificial intelligence will be very advanced, then we will
be able to make super-intelligent beings that will have more processing power, and
problem solving capabilities, so that this would be the last invention that the human
will make. Because the machines will do all the new inventions.
As far as the literature is concerned, we have again a controversial issue. The
authors and poets know things about life generally, as these are the ones that inspire
them to write, better than the scientists, but again they know about matters that the
machine cannot fully understand. None of the theoretical sciences, like literature,
includes knowledge that the computer can understand as they deal with matters that
are discovered through brain patterns, that scientists cannot translate, in order for the
machine to understand them. So, we reach again the conclusion that the machine does
not know, as far as the theoretical sciences are concerned, as it is unable to understand
the function of the human brain. All these again because of the lack of technology.
The mathematicians, on the other side, deal with things that a computer can
fully understand. They deal with functions, using a special code that the computer is
able to understand. The mathematicians are people who have studied this special kind

2
of science that deals with most of every day matters, so they can say that they know
as know is stated in this essay. They can translate most of every day events.
Although someone can say that, under those circumstances, the machine knows, we
have not thought of the people who introduced and proved the theorems in
mathematics. They may had the background of mathematics that the computer also
have, but they used it in such way, using human logic and productive thought, that
reached a conclusion. Especially those who introduce a theorem, who do not combine
knowledge they already have, produce new ideas, based sometimes on their own
thoughts. This productive thought cannot be installed in a machine, so the machine
can neither come up with new ideas, which are very important to mathematics, nor
combine the already installed knowledge, the way a human does, to reach
conclusions. Because humans try different approaches or make up new, due to the fact
that humans have productive thought that the machine yet lacks. So, we can again say
that a machine does not know.
Dealing with history we will say whether a machine, using the historical
knowledge, can reach conclusions about history, that have historians have reached yet.
Historians, the people who research historical elements, trying to understand the
reasons our forefathers did what they did, have the historical background that the
machine is able to have. Actually, the machine can hold a great amount of information
according history. However is it able to reach conclusions? The historians work in the
following way. They study generally about the topic they deal with and later on they
try to get inside our forefathers shoes in order to achieve their goal. Doing this they
have to use their common sense, which is an ability of people and helps them to
reach logical conclusions. The machine may be able to understand better the
information that history provides us, but is not able to deal with common sense,
because, as I mentioned above, is an ability of peoples brain. The machine is not able
to understand the reasons why people do something, as a person and a machine do not
operate in the same way. If someone did something because of his/her instinct the
computer will not understand it. The computer is only able to predict the risk or the
efficiency that something includes. However a human has an instinct and an
experience that may lead him to a decision. This can be understood by a person, but
not by a machine. The conclusion we reach is that the machine may be better than a
person in understanding the information but is not able to reach conclusion using the
tools of the human brain. So, it cannot know.
To conclude a machine cannot be considered as something that can know,
because knowing means that you can use it in ways that are valid, but not by the rules,
which can be called either instinct or emotion. Because emotions and instincts cannot
be integrated as they cannot be understood, then computers will not be able to know
and to predict humans, which is something you can learn through experience. Because
one of main features of a human being is that he/she can reach to a logical conclusion,
taking illogical routes. Also computers cannot see behind the scenes because the
human mind cannot be digitized. Now I believe that I can say without a doubt that a
computer is not capable of knowing.