Can Computers think, why, or why not?

If you are going to tell me that computers can think, I would like to know what you quantify as thinking, and if you believe they cannot think, I would like to know why you believe that they cannot do so.

Can Computers think, why, or why not?stinger

Descartes handles this question interestingly. He speaks about automatons - robots that look like humans, and some of the things they will be unable to do. In fact, the limitations that Descartes spells out heavily influenced the movie Blade Runner, which deals with automatons. I'm more than certain that we can extend the analogy to computers as well.

My answer is this: Computers can only do what they're programmed to do - as much as they "mimic" calculations, they will never UNDERSTAND what they are doing ("consciousness") - nor will they ever be able to address hypotheticals without a point of reference (thus tying into the capacity for understanding, especially dealing with abstract concepts - i.e. justice, racism, beauty, etc.).

Descartes' addresses the issues thus:

He believes there are 2 very certain methods of recognizing an automaton as opposed to a human. 1) Machines (computers) could never arrange words in such a way as to give a meaningful answer to WHATEVER is said in its presence - even automatic speech programs, though very sophisticated, cannot address or differentiate speech nuances or drastically alternative meanings of the same word. 2) They lack the capacity to do anything they want. They can only do the task they are constructed to perform, while man can do or think anything he freely chooses. And, in another text, he suggests that all of the actions (thoughts) performed by a machine (computer) occur NECESSARILY, and the designer ought to be praised since he constructed it, not out of necessity, but freely.