Modularity, cognitive penetrability and the Turing test
Psycoloquy (2000)
| Abstract | The Turing Test blurs the distinction between a model and irrelevant) instantiation details. Modeling only functional modules is problematic if these are interconnected and cognitively penetrable | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJames H. Moor (2001). The Status and Future of the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 11 (1):77-93.
Robert French (1996). The Inverted Turing Test: How a Mindless Program Could Pass It. Psycoloquy 7 (39).
Jamie Cullen (2009). Imitation Versus Communication: Testing for Human-Like Intelligence. Minds and Machines 19 (2):237-254.
Dale Jacquette (1993). Who's Afraid of the Turing Test? Behavior and Philosophy 20 (21):63-74.
Justin Leiber (1995). On Turing's Turing Test and Why the Matter Matters. Synthese 104 (1):59-69.
Ayse P. Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
A. P. Saygin & I. Cicekli (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
B. Jack Copeland (2000). The Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):519-539.
Ayse Pinar Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads13 ( #87,971 of 549,117 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,117 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
