The Acknowledging Language

Through this, Searle argues that if a human and machine receive the same input and then respond by the same output, how are they any different from one another? When given the same purpose, humans and machines have the same response, therefore machines may have a mind. Gilbert Ryle created The computational theory of mind that claims “Computers behave in seemingly rational ways; their inner program causes them to behave in this way and therefore mental states are just like computational states”. He continues on by saying that “If logic can be used to command, and these commands can be coded into logic, then these commands can be coded in terms of 1s and 0s, therefore giving modern computers logic. Through this, how is one to tell if robots don’t have minds if they use logic just like humans do. When the purpose of humans and machines are the same, they may process differently in order to complete that purpose, although they may have the same output. Because humans and machines receive the same input and return the same output, they both have minds in addition to functions and processes in order to do that.

The machines can now give oral responses instead of written responses, also known as a “viva voce”. Humans conclude that they have conscious through their conversations about feelings. If humans can conclude through that method, then it is possible for machines to do it too (?). If a machine can have intelligent conversation with the judges about its work or creation, then that machine is aware of its action. If a machine is aware of its action, then it is conscious which also means it has a mind. Lastly, Turing believes that the concept of consciousness is not relevant to his question about whether a machine can pass the imitation game. The result of the test is not affected by consciousness

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

Turing, a physicalist, believed that artificial intelligence could be achieved in the future. Turing argued that the mind was merely due to the physical aspects of the brain and so a machine could one day be created that has a mind of its own, i.e. artificial intelligence. He created a test called the Turing Test to determine whether a machine has artificial intelligence. In the Turing Test, an interrogator asks two subjects a series of questions. One of the subjects is a person, the other is the computer. The goal is for the person to imitate a computer and the computer to imitate the person. If the interrogator is fooled into thinking that the computer is the human then the computer, according to Turing, is concluded to have the ability to think and thus, have a mind. Turing argued that machines passing the Turing Test were sufficient for ascribing thought.

According to the creators of the experiment, proponents of strong artificial intelligence - those who claim that adequate computer programs can understand natural language or possess other properties of the human mind, not simply simulate them - must admit that either the room understands the Chinese language, or passing the Turing test is not enough proof of intelligence. For the creators of the experiment none of the components of the experiment includes Chinese, and therefore, even if the set of components exceeds the test, the test does not confirm that the person actually understands Chinese, since as we know Searle does not know that language.

a test devised by computer science pioneer Alan Turing. It involves a human being unable to

Nonetheless, French (2012) argues that the time has come to re-examine the abandonment of the idea that a machine programmed could pass the Turing test with unconditional accomplishments. Namely, new discoveries in intellectual cognitive science that have demonstrated that human intelligence is fundamentally linked to the embodied experience suggest that computers cannot imitate human intelligence in those aspects in which it is momentously dependent of the sensory experience of the world. Due to these discoveries, scientists abandoned the idea that computers would be able to fully emulate human behavior. However, as French (2012) suggests advances in information technology have brought about software that can collect and retrieve virtually all data that is presented about human experience on the internet. He cites a recent experiment in which a home camera system filmed the first 2 years of one baby’s life the entire time (French 2012). The data used to teach the computer about those aspects of human cognition as well thus facilitating it effusively to pass the Turing test. What remains is to ask whether a computer that could do that is in any imperative aspect different from a human (French 2012). French (2012) seems to be suggesting that passing this full version of Turing test

Alan Turing’s test attempts to answer the question of whether or not a machine can behave like a human. In this test, a machine and a human are placed in an enclosure, separate from the interrogator. The objective of the machine is to trick the interrogator into thinking it's a person by means of typewritten communication. By limiting communication to text only, Turing filters out any

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

“Thinking” has become so casual in our everyday lives that we sometimes take it for granted and never really think about the process of “thinking”. What does it mean to “think”? What qualities do one need to meet to be considered “capable of thinking”? Being a human involves thinking and thinking involves experiences and emotions. In his paper, Turing questions these traits and brings in new theories to support his statement that machines are capable of thinking, using his imitation game as an example. I would have to disagree with these views and further disagree with the idea that the imitation game can be used to prove a machine’s intelligence.

Turing has become both a point of celebration and a cautionary tale. His narrative is now frequently used to both inspire and show the long-term folly of disallowing personal freedom of (consensual) sexuality. Sources of authority from British Prime Minsters to international corporations as powerful as Google have now vouched for Turing as a scientific genius of enormous value unfairly harassed, highlighting his distinct legacy of contributions to the technology and society of the present day. 6 7 New organisations devoted to technical research such as the Alan Turing Institute and the restored Bletchley Park museum honour his memory, alongside a myriad of new statues and plaques. Cultural artefacts such as the film The Imitation Game (2014) have brought a condensed version of his story to the

In attempting to answer the question of whether machines are able to think, Turing redesigns the question around the notion of machines’ effectiveness at mimicking human cognition. Turing proposes to gauge such effectiveness by a variation of an ‘imitation game,’ where a man and a woman are concealed from an interrogator who makes

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

Most everyone who has undergone public schooling and standardized testing is familiar with the thought “Does this test even assess any real ability?”. Generally, people who don’t perform well on these tests either believe that standardized testing only works for people who are “book smart” or that standardized testing does not work at all. But what is book smart anyway? Some people tend to generalize intelligence into two categories, people who are book smart and people who are “street smart”, as exemplified in Isaac Asimov’s “What is Intelligence, Anyway?”. In Asimov’s excerpt, he tells the story of a young woman who performed well when it came to standardized testing, but realized that she was not street smart. When she went to her mechanic to fix her car, he asks her a trick question and, when she answers incorrectly, says that he knew she would get it wrong because she was so book smart that there was no way she was street smart (122-123). This leads to the distinction that book smart refers to idealized and theoretical intelligence, while street smart refers to a type of hands-on intelligence. While this is a common way for people to view intelligence, there exists an even more thorough examination of intelligence – Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences – which outlines as many as nine types of intelligence. Bearing in mind that there are so many different types of intelligence, it begs the question of whether or not standardized testing can really be a good

The definition of ‘Intelligence’ has been a long-debated topic, and there have been various theories and perspectives of intelligence to date. As a result, various intelligence tests and its controversies have surfaced with these perspectives.