Noûs 41 (4):686–713 (2007)
In 1950, Alan Turing proposed his eponymous test based on indistinguishability of verbal behavior as a replacement for the question "Can machines think?" Since then, two mutually contradictory but well-founded attitudes towards the Turing Test have arisen in the philosophical literature. On the one hand is the attitude that has become philosophical conventional wisdom, viz., that the Turing Test is hopelessly flawed as a sufficient condition for intelligence, while on the other hand is the overwhelming sense that were a machine to pass a real live full-fledged Turing Test, it would be a sign of nothing but our orneriness to deny it the attribution of intelligence. The arguments against the sufficiency of the Turing Test for determining intelligence rely on showing that some extra conditions are logically necessary for intelligence beyond the behavioral properties exhibited by an agent under a Turing Test. Therefore, it cannot follow logically from passing a Turing Test that the agent is intelligent. I argue that these extra conditions can be revealed by the Turing Test, so long as we allow a very slight weakening of the criterion from one of logical proof to one of statistical proof under weak realizability assumptions. The argument depends on the notion of interactive proof developed in theoretical computer science, along with some simple physical facts that constrain the information capacity of agents. Crucially, the weakening is so slight as to make no conceivable difference from a practical standpoint. Thus, the Gordian knot between the two opposing views of the sufficiency of the Turing Test can be cut
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Nomic Probability and the Foundations of Induction.John L. Pollock - 1990 - Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Descartes' Influence on Turing.Darren Abramson - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (4):544-551.
The Externalist Foundations of a Truly Total Turing Test.Paul Schweizer - 2012 - Minds and Machines 22 (3):191-212.
Turing Interrogative Games.Paweł Łupkowski & Andrzej Wiśniewski - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (3):435-448.
Similar books and articles
Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW]A. P. Saygin & I. Cicekli - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
On Turing's Turing Test and Why the Matter Matters.Justin Leiber - 1995 - Synthese 104 (1):59-69.
What Does the Turing Test Really Mean? And How Many Human Beings (Including Turing) Could Pass?Tyler Cowen & Michelle Dawson - unknown
Making the Right Identification in the Turing Test.Saul Traiger - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):561-572.
Turing Test: 50 Years Later. [REVIEW]Pinar Saygin Ayse, Cicekli Ilyas & Akman Varol - 2000 - Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
A Simple Comment Regarding the Turing Test.Benny Shanon - 1989 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19 (June):249-56.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #261,540 of 2,177,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #166,811 of 2,177,988 )
How can I increase my downloads?