does my program think when it solves math? And if so, does a calculator also think?

This is indeed the point of the discussion. Limiting the discussion to a narrow function/example allows me to explore the question without a lot of extraneous factors.

Although the question is more philosophical than anything else, to believe a machine thinks, you need to believe a non-human (animal, machine, etc.) can think, and have some definition of what you believe thinking is.

Common definitions of thinking:
-A way of reasoning/judgment
-The process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
-The action of using one’s mind to produce thoughts, ideas, decisions, memories
-The activity of thinking about something

My view is that thinking is a continuum, not a boolean yes/no. Animals, babies, professors may all be thinking on different points of a spectrum. Machines can think, or at minimum create the illusion of intelligence.

I don’t view basic calculation, or a lookup table as thinking any more than an abacus is. Involuntary response does not cross the threshold for me.

But, when you add in symbol grounding/manipulation and a process to manipulate the results to achieve an appropriate answer, that is a thought process. Spreadsheets may be simplistic thinking machines.

User: 5 = 2 + zebra. Solve for zebra.
Bot: Zebra = three
User: 5-2=test. what is test?
Bot: Three.
User: Bob is taller than Bill. Tim is Taller than Bob. Who is tallest?
Bot: Who is tallest? Definitely Tim.
User: Bob is taller than Bill. Tim is Taller than Bob. Who is smallest?
Bot: Bill is smallest.
User: define thinking
Bot: Ok. I’ll search for a definition of thinking.

think•ing (thĭngˈkĭng)►

  n.
  The act or practice of one that thinks; thought.
  n.
  A way of reasoning; judgment: To my thinking, this is not a good idea.
  adj.
  Characterized by thought or thoughtfulness; rational: We are thinking animals.

More at Wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

I see. I also regard thought, or rather intelligence, as a degree on a scale. However, I find the domain too narrow for it to register on my scale. If there is any thought to be found, it would be in this “writes its own code” process. My point however is that we don’t have that process at our disposal to judge from. I know that a number of chatbots use rigid instructions for each kind of math question just like my program. Given that, the visible difference between a potentially thinking AI;

Merlin - Apr 8, 2016:

AI: Twenty two. 

- and my thoughtless math subroutine;

- is indistinguishable.

Our take #AI and #chatbots: http://www.cuelogic.com/blog/enter-facebook-bots-exit-apps/

Welcome Snehith!

You wrote: 1. Chat-bots may yet be a passing fad. Just how long will it take for people to get bored of artificially-inclined conversation? Unless the conversations attain a high degree of expertise, replicate a human-like ease, replacing apps is a distant dream.

Passing Fad? Hmm…Let’s think about that statement…

Since Eliza was developed in the mid 1960’s at MIT, to today, 50 years later, where we now have thousands of chatbots of all kinds and running under a variety of programs and Operating Systems. There are also many national and international competitions , contests and organizations not to mention lectures and conferences each year and have been ongoing for many years. People from all walks of life participating, creating, experimenting, teaching and sharing in this most interesting passion.

Passing fad? Well, if you say so….(you’re entitled to your opinion).