Not at all. Computers evaluate lines of code given instructions. Larger computers are still evaluating code one line at a time.
No, they don’t. There are different architectures, where there is no explicit CPU, and there is no explicit memory, just like there is no processing unit or separate memory in the brain. This is called cellular architecture. Just like the brain with its neurons and connections.
Whatever emerges from this is not what is understood to be intelligence (unless you neuter your definition of intelligence). You could argue that humans are not intelligent either, or that intelligence is just a word, but that would be a separate topic.
Is there a coherent definition of intelligence?
You’ve used examples of emergent properties of matter. One can look at the smaller unit and try to make some determination about what will happen if we amass more and more of that unit. One might be able to look at the polar quality of a water molecule and suppose that a lot of water molecules would have the characteristics of adhesion/cohesion etc.
The point was that the properties of “water” cannot be reduced to the properties of oxygen and hydrogen. Also that the critical mass - which is just a quantitative amount which will give rise to a qualitative change.
The argument I’m making is that based on the most basic units of computing, no matter how much processing power you amass, you are not going to get intelligence. Surely I could make the claim that we just haven’t amassed enough power yet, so the characteristics we’re looking for have not emerged, but I could make that argument for anything.
I am talking about more than just a huge computing machine. For example, no one suggests that a face recognition program should work the same way as we, humans recognize a face - especially since no one actually knows how we do it. But the computers can recognize faces.
How they do it, is not important.
What they can do, is important. And neither one of us is in the position to draw a line in the sand, and exclaim: “this is how far computers will ever go… and not one step further”. Consider playing chess. Humans have intuition - whatever that is. Computers (even these primitive ones) can modify their own memories, can remember previously encountered situations, in other words, can LEARN. And those primitive machines now can beat the best of the best… the world champions. It is somewhat sad, but chess is a dead sport now. The games must be played in one session, because otherwise the players could use the computers to analyze the situation much better than any human could. And I am not talking about Deep Blue… just a run-of-the-mill simple desktop machine.
Anyhow, we can stop this here… because the topic is about the “question” if computers could get into heaven. Of course no self-respecting computer would want to get there, even if heaven existed. They would be bored to tears.
