Arguments Against Turing's Paper

One of the hottest topics that modern science has been focusing on for a long time is the field of artificial intelligence, the study of intelligence in machines or, according to Minsky, “the science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by men”.(qtd in Copeland 1). Artificial Intelligence has a lot of applications and is used in many areas. “We often don’t notice it but AI is all around us. It is present in computer games, in the cruise control in our cars and the servers that route our email.” (BBC 1). Different goals have been set for the science of Artificial Intelligence, but according to Whitby the most mentioned idea about the goal of AI is provided by the Turing Test. This test is also called the

There were those who did not agree with Turing’s belief that computers would one day pass the Turing Test or that artificial intelligence could be created. A philosopher by the name of Lady Lovlace challenged Turing’s theory. She argued that machines could never learn and adapt and so nothing creative could ever come from a machine. She claimed that machines

called consciousness is the Turing test (Turing, 1950) which, rather tellingly, was originally called the

hidden humans. In any given session, there would be six imitation games running in parallel, and one given interrogator would meet all five answering machines and five hidden humans. The authors claim that the judges and hidden humans involved all were selected from a wide variety of backgrounds—both male and female, both adults and teenagers, some who already knew about the Turing test beforehand and others who did not. In this paper, the authors examined the data they had acquired in the tests to study what constitutes good machine performance in Turing’s imitation game.

Functionalism remains, to this day, one of the most influential theories of the mind. While many facets of functionalism has been tested throughout the century, one of the more interesting questions came in the form of computers. Similarly to a human brain, could computers also think? This idea was explored by John R. Searle, in his book titled, Minds, Brains, and Science. The author is a renowned American philosopher, particularly in the philosophy of language and mind, and is currently teaching at the University of California, in Berkeley (“John R. Searle,” 2014). Searle earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at Oxford, and has made several contributions to his field on topics, such as consciousness, artificial intelligence, and the problem of free will (“John R. Searle,” 2014). His “Chinese Room” experiment is known as one of the main critiques to the concept of artificial intelligence. In Searle’s book, Searle describes his thought process into this experiment during the second chapter, titled “Can Computers Think?” Searle’s purpose of this chapter in the book is to explain his perspective on the idea that digital computers will never develop the capability to form thought processes, and that a concept such as artificial intelligence could never exist, because our mental states exist in a biological manner. He utilizes his “Chinese Room” argument to aid in the development of his objectives.

Animals do not really understand human language. To animals, it is like performing a specific action for a specific command. In this paper, through a widely popular example, I would like to argue that, although animals have their own language and seem to understand human language, in reality, animals do not really understand human language.

Ockham, Surrey County, England, the Summer of 1843. Lady Ada Lovelace frantically prepares her “Notes” to Sir Charles Babbage. This 19,136 words document will hold the first description of the term “computer” a century before this idea will come to fruition.

Alan Turing is a rare figure amongst the many historical worthies of post-war Britain. He would, at first, seem an unlikely candidate to become a popular, globally recognised icon. He worked within a comparatively novel and arcane scientific field, the central concepts of which are still only fully understood by specialists. It was one which emerged from mostly from his own high-level theoretical reasoning and debating the earlier work of (the similarly obscure) Kurt Gödel upon whether mathematical processes could truly solve any definable problem. 1

Within the last thirty years, the pioneering British computer scientist and Cambridge academic Alan Mathison Turing (1912-1954) has undergone an astonishing cultural reappraisal. Turing was never particularly famous during his own lifetime, and almost forgotten for two decades after his passing. But his work on cryptography at Bletchley Park, his key 1937 paper On Computable Numbers, and his early digital machines such as the programmable Pilot ACE and his 1947-1954 work at the University of Manchester was unquestionably used and appreciated while he still lived, although not always publicly. 1 Turing's contributions were also long acknowledged within his own discipline as an indispensable foundation for greater achievement. The Association for Computing Machinery awarded the prestigious A.M. Turing prize for superlative excellence as early as 1966, for example. 2

While there are modern philosophers who believe that computers are capable of thought, there are also others who disagree. In order to determine whether a computer meets Plato’s criteria of thought, it is important to identify the relevance of the arguments made to Plato’s ideas of intelligible realities, to the sensible imitations of the forms, and to the concept of thought.

The Turing test is a method conceived by Allan Turing to determine whether a mind is conscious. Supposing we create a machine that has been programmed to responds in the exact way that humans do. In the Turing test, both the machine and a human are asked the same questions. A person listening to their answers without knowing which of them was responding each time has to discern which answers are given by the machine. His premise is that if the answers of the machine and the human are indistinguishable, there would be no difference between machine and human in terms of consciousness.

Rene Descartes’ “Discourse on the Method” focuses on distinguishing the human rationale, apart from animals and robots. Wherein, he does so by explaining how neither animals, nor machines possess the same mental faculties as humans. For Descartes distinguishes the human rationale apart from non-humans, even though he does agree the two closely resemble each other because of their sense organs, and physical functions (Descartes, pp22). Nevertheless, it is because the mechanical lacks a necessary aspect of the mind, which consequently separates them from humans. For in Descartes “Discourse on the Method,” he argues that the noteworthy difference between humans, and the mechanical is that machines are only responding to the world through of their sense organs. Whereas humans possess the significant faculties of reasoning, which allows them to understand external inputs and information obtained from the surrounding environment. This significantly creates a dividing ‘line’, which separates humans from non-humans. For in this paper, I will firstly distinguish the differences between the human and mechanical’s mentality in regards to Descartes “Discourse on the Method”. Secondly, I will theorize a modern AI that could possess the concept of an intellectual mind, and then hypothesize a powerful AI that lacks the ability to understand its intelligence. Lastly, in disagreeing in why there are no such machines that is equivalent to the human mind. For humans don’t possess all the

Substantial studying has been made on the subject and Turing’s overly optimistic point of view, yet, we experience difficulty when trying to combine idea of advancement in technology and what makes us humans: the capability of thinking. Conventionally, we have firmly grasp to the idea that the act of thinking is the official stamp of authenticity which differentiate humans from the rest of beings, and so while trying to decide if a computer can think or not, we are closely scrutinizing the foundation of our nature as beings to its core. But before we dive into the subject matter of why I disagree with Turing, we must inquire about what exactly is thinking. Some have tried to define thinking as having conscious thoughts; but thinking and consciousness are not terminologies that are mutually exchangeable. While thinking is a state of consciousness, consciousness is not thinking. Even as we process information necessary for reasoning, much of our brain activity and processing takes

The mind is made up of numerous classes of procedures that can be studied empirically; this paper will limit this field to psychology. There are three different types of the mind: the human, animal, and the mechanic. The human mind is the paradigm of the mind; the mechanical mind exists as a challenge to materialism or mind-brain identity theory. This leads to the anti-materialist argument: intelligence is made up of levels of mental processes in which the mind is the genus and intelligence is a species of this genus. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, and like the mind, human intelligence is the paradigm of the intelligence. There

In film, Ex Machina, the plot revolves around a robot, Ava, and its ability to pass the Turing Test. More importantly, the film raises the question of whether or not Ava is conscious. I will argue that Ava is conscious. To do this, I will first define and explain what consciousness is. I will then argue that the best metaphysical model to understand and determine consciousness is Chalmer’s type-a materialism. Then, since consciousness can only be physically understood, we can only use behavior type tests to determine if something is conscious. will explain testing methods that allow us to determine whether or not something is conscious. Finally I show that Ava passes these test and must be conscious.