David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (4):425-445 (2000)
Turing's celebrated 1950 paper proposes a very generalmethodological criterion for modelling mental function: total functionalequivalence and indistinguishability. His criterion gives rise to ahierarchy of Turing Tests, from subtotal (toy) fragments of ourfunctions (t1), to total symbolic (pen-pal) function (T2 – the standardTuring Test), to total external sensorimotor (robotic) function (T3), tototal internal microfunction (T4), to total indistinguishability inevery empirically discernible respect (T5). This is areverse-engineering hierarchy of (decreasing) empiricalunderdetermination of the theory by the data. Level t1 is clearly toounderdetermined, T2 is vulnerable to a counterexample (Searle's ChineseRoom Argument), and T4 and T5 are arbitrarily overdetermined. Hence T3is the appropriate target level for cognitive science. When it isreached, however, there will still remain more unanswerable questionsthan when Physics reaches its Grand Unified Theory of Everything (GUTE),because of the mind/body problem and the other-minds problem, both ofwhich are inherent in this empirical domain, even though Turing hardlymentions them.
|Keywords||cognitive neuroscience cognitive science computation computationalism consciousness dynamical systems epiphenomenalism intelligence machines mental models mind/body problem other minds problem philosophy of science qualia reverse engineering robotics Searle symbol grounding theory of mind thinking Turing underdetermination Zombies|
|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
Karl F. MacDorman, Sandosh K. Vasudevan & Chin-Chang Ho (2009). Does Japan Really Have Robot Mania? Comparing Attitudes by Implicit and Explicit Measures. AI and Society 23 (4):485-510.
Similar books and articles
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 (1989). Minds, Machines and Searle. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 1 (4):5-25.
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.
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.
Paul Schweizer (1998). The Truly Total Turing Test. Minds and Machines 8 (2):263-272.
B. Jack Copeland (2002). Accelerating Turing Machines. Minds and Machines 12 (2):281-300.
Stevan Harnad (1995). Does Mind Piggyback on Robotic and Symbolic Capacity? In H. Morowitz & J. Singer (eds.), The Mind, the Brain, and Complex Adaptive Systems. Addison Wesley.
Stevan Harnad (2000). Minds, Machines and Turing: The Indistinguishability of Indistinguishables. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (4):425-445.
Stevan Harnad (2001). Minds, Machines and Turing: The Indistinguishability of Indistinguishables. Philosophical Explorations.
Eric Steinhart (2003). Supermachines and Superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1):155-186.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #204,162 of 1,413,402 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #154,345 of 1,413,402 )
How can I increase my downloads?