Skip to main content
Log in

Reaping the whirlwind: Reply to Harnad's “other bodies, other minds”

  • Discussion
  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Harnad's proposed “robotic upgrade” of Turing's Test (TT), from a test of linguistic capacity alone to a Total Turing Test (TTT) of linguisticand sensorimotor capacity, conflicts with his claim that no behavioral test provides even probable warrant for attributions of thought because there is “no evidence” of consciousness besides “private experience”. Intuitive, scientific, and philosophical considerations Harnad offers in favor of his proposed upgrade are unconvincing. I agree with Harnad that distinguishing real from “as if” thought on the basis of (presence or lack of) consciousness (thus rejecting Turing (behavioral) testing as sufficient warrant for mental attribution)has the skeptical consequence Harnad accepts — “there is in factno evidence for me that anyone else but me has a mind”. I disagree with hisacceptance of it! It would be better to give up the neo-Cartesian “faith” in private conscious experience underlying Harnad's allegiance to Searle's controversial Chinese Room “Experiment” than give up all claim to know others think. It would be better to allow that (passing) Turing's Test evidences — evenstrongly evidences — thought.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcock, J. E. (1987), “Parapsychology: Science of the Anomalous or Search for the Soul?,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, pp. 553–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L. (1957), “A Plea for Excuses,” in R. Ammerman, ed.,Classics of Analytic Philosophy, Indianaopolis: Hackett Publishing Co., pp. 379–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boghossian, P. A. (1989), “Rule Following Considerations,”Mind 98, pp. 507–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, Paul (1988),Matter and Consciousness, Cambridge, MA: MIT/Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, David (1984), “Thought and Thought Experiments,”Philosophical Studies 45, pp. 431–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1982), “The Myth of the Computer: An Exchange,”New York Review of Books XXIX (11), p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1987), “Fast Thinking’,The International Stance, Cambridge, MA: MIT/Bradford Books, pp. 323–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1637),Discourse on Method, translated in J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch, eds.,Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. I, New York: Cambridge University Press (1985), pp. 7–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1642),Objections and Replies, translated in J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch, eds.,Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. II, New York: Cambridge University Press (1984), pp. 63–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F. (1985), “Machines and the Mental,”Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 59, pp. 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, Jerry A. (1968), “Materialism,” in David M. Rosenthal, ed.,Materialism and the Mind-Body Problem, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, pp. 128–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, K. (1985),Mentality and Machines, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad, S. E. (1989), “Minds, Machines and Searle,”Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 1, pp. 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad, S. E. (1991), “Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation of an Old Philosophical Problem,”Mind and Machines 1(1), pp. 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, L. S. (1991a), “Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing?,” in L. Hauser and W. J. Rapaport (1991), “Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing? Essay, Comments, and Reply,”Technical Report 91-20, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science; forthcoming inMinds and Machines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, L. S. (1991b), “The Sense of ‘Thinking’: Reply to Rapaport,” in L. Hauser and W.J. Rapaport (1991), “Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing? Essay, Comments, and Reply,”Technical Report 91-20, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science; forthcoming inMinds and Machines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, A. (1983),Alan Turing: The Enigma of Intelligence, New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S. (1982),Wittgenstein on Rules and Private language, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiber, Justin (1991),Invitation to Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiber, Justin (1985),Can Animals and Machines be Persons?: A Dialogue, Inadianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, Ruth (1984),Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (1974), “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?,”Philosophical Review 83, pp. 435–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (1986),The View from Nowhere, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1975), “Indirect Speech Acts,”Expression and Meaning, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1980a), “Minds, Brains and Programs,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1980b), “Intrinsic Intentionality,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 450–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1982), “The Myth of the Computer: An Exchange,”New York Review of Books XXIX (11), pp. 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1983),Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sealre, J. R. (1984a),Minds, Brains and Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1984b), “Intentionality and its Place in Nature,”Synthese 61, pp. 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1987), “Indeterminacy, Empiricism and the First Person,”The Journal of Philosophy LXXXIV(3), pp. 123–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1989), “Consciousness, Unconsciousness and Intentionality,”Philosophical Topics XVII(1), pp. 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1990a), “Consciousness, Explanatory Inversion and Cognitive Science,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, pp. 585–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1990b), “Who is Computing with the Brain,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, pp. 632–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A. M. (1950), “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,”Mind LIX, pp. 433–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiskrantz, L. (1986),Blindsight: A Case Study and Implications, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1958),Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauser, L. Reaping the whirlwind: Reply to Harnad's “other bodies, other minds”. Mind Mach 3, 219–237 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975533

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975533

Key words

Navigation