Minds and Machines 20 (2):203-212 (2010)
This paper revisits the often debated question Can machines think? It is argued that the usual identification of machines with the notion of algorithm has been both counter-intuitive and counter-productive. This is based on the fact that the notion of algorithm just requires an algorithm to contain a finite but arbitrary number of rules. It is argued that intuitively people tend to think of an algorithm to have a rather limited number of rules. The paper will further propose a modification of the above mentioned explication of the notion of machines by quantifying the length of an algorithm. Based on that it appears possible to reconcile the opposing views on the topic, which people have been arguing about for more than half a century.
|Keywords||AI debate Algorithmic Kolmogorov complexity Turing Test|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Deductive Program Verification (a Practitioner's Commentary).David A. Nelson - 1992 - Minds and Machines 2 (3):283-307.
Algorithms and Arguments: The Foundational Role of the ATAI-Question.Paola Cantu' & Italo Testa - 2011 - In Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden & Gordon Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 192-203). Rozenberg / Sic Sat.
An Ç ´Ò¿ Μ Agenda-Based Chart Parser for Arbitrary Probabilistic Context-Free Grammars.Dan Klein & Christopher D. Manning - unknown
Turing-, Human- and Physical Computability: An Unasked Question. [REVIEW]Eli Dresner - 2008 - Minds and Machines 18 (3):349-355.
Added to index2010-06-19
Total downloads62 ( #84,983 of 2,172,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #75,926 of 2,172,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?