Phaenex 1 (1):73-85 (2006)
A. M. Turing argued that there was "little point in trying to make a 'thinking machine' more human by dressing it up in ... artificial flesh." We should, instead, draw "a fairly sharp line between the physical and the intellectual capacities of a man." For over fifty years, drawing this line has meant disregarding the role flesh plays in our intellectual capacities. Correspondingly, intelligence has been defined in terms of the algorithms that both men and machines can perform. I would like to raise some doubts about this paradigm in artificial intelligence research. Intelligence, I believe, does not just involve the working of algorithms. It is founded on flesh's ability to move itself, to feel itself, and to engage in the body projects that accompanied our learning a language. This implies that to copy intelligence -- i.e., to produce an artificial version of it -- the flesh that forms its basis must also be reproduced
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Flesh and Nature: Understanding Merleau-Pontys Relational Ontology.Bryan E. Bannon - 2011 - Research in Phenomenology 41 (3):327-357.
Consciousness, Intentionality, and Intelligence: Some Foundational Issues for Artificial Intelligence.Murat Aydede & Guven Guzeldere - 2000 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12 (3):263-277.
Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence.Shane Legg & Marcus Hutter - 2007 - Minds and Machines 17 (4):391-444.
Natural Problems and Artificial Intelligence.Tracy B. Henley - 1990 - Behavior and Philosophy 18 (2):43-55.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #203,974 of 2,171,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,615 of 2,171,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?