David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Turing set the agenda for (what would eventually be called) the cognitive sciences. He said, essentially, that cognition is as cognition does (or, more accurately, as cognition is capable of doing): Explain the causal basis of cognitive capacity and you’ve explained cognition. Test your explanation by designing a machine that can do everything a normal human cognizer can do – and do it so veridically that human cognizers cannot tell its performance apart from a real human cognizer’s – and you really cannot ask for anything more. Or can you? Neither Turing modelling nor any other kind of computational r dynamical modelling will explain how or why cognizers feel
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stevan Harnad & Itiel Dror (2006). Distributed Cognition: Cognizing, Autonomy and the Turing Test. Pragmatics and Cognition 14 (2):14.
Stevan Harnad (1991). Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation of an Old Philosophical Problem. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 1 (1):43-54.
Stevan Harnad (2005). Distributed Processes, Distributed Cognizers and Collaborative Cognition. [Journal (Paginated)] (in Press) 13 (3):01-514.
Y. Sato & T. Ikegami (2004). Undecidability in the Imitation Game. Minds and Machines 14 (2):133-43.
Stevan Harnad (2006). The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery, and Intelligence. In Robert Epstein & G. Peters (eds.), [Book Chapter] (in Press). Kluwer
Stevan Harnad (2006). The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery, and Intelligence. In Robert Epstein & Grace Peters (eds.), [Book Chapter] (in Press). Kluwer
Robert M. French (1990). Subcognition and the Limits of the Turing Test. Mind 99 (393):53-66.
A. P. Saygin & I. Cicekli (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Justin Leiber (2006). Turing's Golden: How Well Turing's Work Stands Today. Philosophical Psychology 19 (1):13-46.
Stevan Harnad (1992). The Turing Test is Not a Trick: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion. Philosophical Explorations 3 (4):9-10.
Ayse P. Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Ayse Pinar Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2000). Turing's Rules for the Imitation Game. Minds and Machines 10 (4):573-582.
Jamie Cullen (2009). Imitation Versus Communication: Testing for Human-Like Intelligence. Minds and Machines 19 (2):237-254.
Stevan Harnad (2003). Can a Machine Be Conscious? How? Journal of Consciousness Studies 10 (4):67-75.
Added to index2011-05-04
Total downloads53 ( #85,928 of 1,939,061 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #217,185 of 1,939,061 )
How can I increase my downloads?