comments
Respond
Comment on the article
Add a citation
Reply with an article
Start a new topic
Edit
Edit article
Delete article
Share
Invite
Link
Embed
Social media
Avatar
View
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Article ✓
Outline
Document
Down
All
Page
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Updates
Subscribe to updates
Get updates
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past month
Past year
Pause updates
Contact us
James Moor
Arguments advanced by James Moor.
RELATED ARTICLES
Explain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence☜A collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?—exploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.☜F1CEB7
⌃
Protagonists
Protagonists☜The contributions of over 300 protagonists can be explored via a surname search, or using the growing list developing here.☜D3B8AB
■
James Moor
James Moor☜Arguments advanced by James Moor.☜D3B8AB
⇤
The Empiricist Reply
The Empiricist Reply☜Empirical evidence suggests semantics can emerge from low-level syntax—e.g. a barcode reader. Similarly, high-level semantics may emerge from a robot with a self organising network that makes reasonable inferences from implicit information.☜FFFACD
⇤
The Pseudorealisation Fallacy
The Pseudorealisation Fallacy☜Fantastic realisations of the computational theory of mind, such as Searles man in a Chinese Room, are irrelevant to empirical psychology. Relevant realisations are subject to empirical constraints; they cant be pseudorealisations.☜FFFACD
⇤
Man in Chinese Room would have to be an alien
Man in Chinese Room would have to be an alien☜Searle assumes the man can carry out millions of operations per second with perfect accuracy. As real humans get lazy, bored and distracted, the man would have to be an alien with a mix of superhuman capacities and subhuman needs and desires.☜FFFACD
⇤
A serious judge would not be easily fooled
A serious judge would not be easily fooled☜A critical judge would not lazily interact with a competitor in the Turing test, but would be focused on distinguishing the human from the computer. Such a judge could not be easily fooled.☜FFFACD
⇤
Linguistic evidence sufficient for good inductive inference
Linguistic evidence sufficient for good inductive inference☜An inductive inference that a machine can think can be made by considering only linguistic behaviour; even if this inference needs to be revised later in the light of further evidence. Inferences made without full evidence are common in science.☜FFFACD
⇤
Narrowness objections play misleading game
Narrowness objections play misleading game☜Its misleading to characterize the Turing Test as just one test, as it can be used to conduct many different kinds of tests. The interrogation can test for a wide range of abilities (eg tell jokes, speak a foreign language, discuss urban renewal.☜FFFACD
⇤
Can inductive evidence determine this?
Can inductive evidence determine this?☜Is the test—as a source of inductive evidence—a legitimate test of intelligence? Such evidence may be weak or strong, but never deductively certain. A claim that a system thinks based on its passing the test is open to further evidence and revision.☜FFFACD
⇤
Competing explanations can be compatible
Competing explanations can be compatible☜An explanation of a computers behaviour in terms of its thinking may be compatible with an explanation in terms of its underlying mechanisms.☜FFFACD
⇤
No: Turing assumes the brain's a machine
No: Turing assumes the brain's a machine☜Whether or not the brain is a machine is part of whats at issue, because if brains were machines then obviously some machines (brains) would be able to think. So Turing begs the question, by assuming part of what hes trying to prove.☜FFFACD
⇤
Customer could infer that the cleaner was all-purpuse
Customer could infer that the cleaner was all-purpuse☜The buyer wouldnt have to watch the vacuum perform every task to infer that it was a good vacuum cleaner. Such an inference might also be supported, for example, by the observation that the vacuum includes various attachments.☜FFFACD
⇤
Knowledge of internal processes unnecessary
Knowledge of internal processes unnecessary☜Inferences about thinking are not based on knowledge of internal operations. We generally infer that someone thinks just on the basis of outward behaviour.☜FFFACD
⇤
Vulnerable to counter-examples
Vulnerable to counter-examples☜Whether behaviorally or operationally interpreted, the Turing test is vulnerable to cases where unthinking machines pass the test or unthinking machines fail it.☜FFFACD
□
Alan Turing
Alan Turing☜Arguments advanced by Alan Turing.☜D3B8AB
□
Daniel Dennett
Daniel Dennett☜Arguments advanced by Daniel Dennett.☜D3B8AB
□
David Chalmers
David Chalmers☜Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and director of the Centre for Consciousness at ANU, and Professor of Philosophy and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU.☜D3B8AB
□
David Cole
David Cole☜Arguments advanced by David Cole.☜D3B8AB
□
David Rumelhart
David Rumelhart☜Arguments advanced by David Rumelhart.☜D3B8AB
□
Douglas Hofstadter
Douglas Hofstadter☜Arguments advanced by Douglas Hofstadter.☜D3B8AB
□
George Lakoff
George Lakoff☜Arguments advanced by George Lakoff.☜D3B8AB
□
Georges Rey
Georges Rey☜Arguments advanced by Georges Rey.☜D3B8AB
□
Herbert Simon
Herbert Simon☜Arguments advanced by Herbert Simon.☜D3B8AB
□
Hilary Putnam
Hilary Putnam☜Arguments advanced by Hilary Putnam.☜D3B8AB
□
Hubert Dreyfus
Hubert Dreyfus☜Arguments advanced by Hubert Dreyfus.☜D3B8AB
□
Hugh Loebner
Hugh Loebner☜Arguments advanced by Hugh Loebner.☜D3B8AB
□
Jack Copeland
Jack Copeland☜Arguments advanced by Jack Copeland.☜D3B8AB
□
James McClelland
James McClelland☜Arguments advanced by James McClelland.☜D3B8AB
□
Jerry Fodor
Jerry Fodor☜Arguments advanced by Jerry Fodor.☜D3B8AB
□
John Lucas
John Lucas☜Arguments advanced by John Lucas.☜D3B8AB
□
John Searle
John Searle☜Arguments advanced by John Searle.☜D3B8AB
□
Joseph F. Rychlak
Joseph F. Rychlak☜Arguments advanced by Joseph F. Rychlak.☜D3B8AB
□
Keith Gunderson
Keith Gunderson☜Arguments advanced by Keith Gunderson.☜D3B8AB
□
L.J. Landau
L.J. Landau☜☜D3B8AB
□
Ned Block
Ned Block☜Arguments advanced by Ned Block.☜D3B8AB
□
Robert French
Robert French☜Arguments advanced by Robert French.☜D3B8AB
□
Roger Penrose
Roger Penrose☜Arguments advanced by Roger Penrose.☜D3B8AB
□
Selmer Bringsjord
Selmer Bringsjord☜Arguments advanced by Selmer Bringsjord.☜D3B8AB
□
Stephen Kosslyn
Stephen Kosslyn☜Arguments advanced by Stephen Kosslyn.☜D3B8AB
□
Zenon Pylyshyn
Zenon Pylyshyn☜Arguments advanced by Zenon Pylyshyn.☜D3B8AB
□
Graph of this discussion
Graph of this discussion☜Click this to see the whole debate, excluding comments, in graphical form☜dcdcdc
Enter the title of your article
Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Enter the main body of your article
Prefer more work space? Try the
big editor
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
November 2024
>
<<
November 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
44
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
45
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
46
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
48
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
0
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#2776
Node type:
Protagonist
Entry date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:10:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:10:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
12
Average rating:
0
by
0
users
Enter comment
Select article text to quote
Cancel
Enter
welcome text
First name
Last name
Email
Skip
Join
x
Select file to upload