In one form or another, the question of whether or not machines can think dates back nearly three thousand years when philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes pondered the reply (Waldrop, 2004: 3). The question has withstood the ages as it encapsulates other important philosophical puzzles such as the existence of the soul, the explanation of consciousness and the definition of intention (Waldrop, 2004: 8). Essentially, there are only two possible answers: yes, as represented in this paper by the writings of Daniel Dennett or no, as represented by John Searle. Yet the solution as to whether machines can think holds the same immense significance as Darwins The Origin of Species or Freuds unveiling of the subconscious (Waldrop, 2004: 7), for either answer will ultimately change our perceptions of what it means to be human. Furthermore, as contemporary technology continues to quickly evolve, the answer to this puzzle becomes more pertinent than ever. It is the contention of this paper that the solution as to whether or not machines can think is largely a matter of semantics, while todays technology more than ever holds the potentiality of the affirmative. In short, this paper seeks to explain that the contemporary answer to the age-old question is both yes and no.
