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
Ned Block
Arguments advanced by Ned Block.
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
■
Ned Block
Ned Block☜Arguments advanced by Ned Block.☜D3B8AB
⇤
The Connection Principle Dilemma
The Connection Principle Dilemma☜Ned Block argues that the connection principle leads to a dilemma involving access and phenomenal conscisousness (described in the detailed text) which requires the rejection of the principle.☜FFFACD
⇤
Unconscious intentional zombies
Unconscious intentional zombies☜Unconscious intentional zombies—zombies with thoughts about the world—should be a logical possibility in a theory of consciousness. The connection principles demand that all intentionality and thinking be accessible to consciousness rules them out.☜FFFACD
⇤
Absent qualia problem
Absent qualia problem☜Imagine a rose smelling experience can be instantiated through complex, functionally organised interactions among the entire population of China. Functionalists must argue that the rose-smelling eperience exists, but the qualia would be absent.☜FFFACD
⇤
Digital computers can’t process analogue images
Digital computers can’t process analogue images☜Digital computers will probably never be able to process analogue information (eg images). The brain processes imagery using analogue physiological mechanisms; to do the same, computers will probably have to be supplemented by analogue mechanisms.☜FFFACD
⇤
The Psychologism Objection
The Psychologism Objection☜Behaviour by itself isnt enough: internal differences matter. If two systems behave in exactly the same way, one might be intelligent while the other is stupid because of differences in the way each system processes information.☜FFFACD
⇤
All Possible Conversations Machine
All Possible Conversations Machine☜An unintelligent machine engaging in sensible conversation by searching a database containing all possible lines of conversation in a finite Turing test, would pass the neo-Turing test—but it would be only echoing its programmers intelligence.☜FFFACD
⇤
Some machines can exhibit their own intelligence
Some machines can exhibit their own intelligence☜Unlike the all-possible-conversations machine, which dumbly searches a list of conversations, a machine equipped with general mechanisms for learning, problem solving etc would exhibit its own intelligence as well as its designers.☜FFFACD
⇤
Intelligence requires "richness" of information processing
Intelligence requires "richness" of information processing☜The all-possible-conversations machine isnt unintelligent simiply because it processes information in a different way to us: its that the way it processes information lacks the richness of processing capacity that we associate with intelligence.☜FFFACD
⇤
Machine is logically possible
Machine is logically possible☜The machine is logically possible even if it is empirically impossible. Because the neo-Turing test makes a claim about the concept of intelligence, it is refuted by the logical possibility of the machine.☜FFFACD
⇤
Machine is all echoes
Machine is all echoes☜Intelligence is not being redefined, because its part of our normal conception of intelligence that input-output capacity can be misleading—e.g. just because a person copies the moves of a chess grandmaster doesnt make that person a grandmaster.☜FFFACD
⇤
Dated system can still be intelligent
Dated system can still be intelligent☜Intelligence doesnt require knowledge of current events. For example, the machine could be programmed to simulate Robinson Crusoe, who is intelligent even though he cant answer questions about recent events.☜FFFACD
⇤
Machine could be updated
Machine could be updated☜Programmers could periodically update the machines list of responses.☜FFFACD
⇤
No: failing the Test is not decisive
No: failing the Test is not decisive☜It is possible to fail the Turing Test for intelligence and still be an intelligent being. ☜FFFACD
⇤
Judges may discriminate too well
Judges may discriminate too well☜Overly discerning or chauvinistic judges might fail intelligent machines solely because of their machine like behaviour.☜FFFACD
⇤
No: passing the Test is not decisive
No: passing the Test is not decisive☜Even if a computer were to pass the Turing test, this would not justify the conclusion that it was thinking intelligently. ☜FFFACD
⇤
Human judges may be fooled too easily
Human judges may be fooled too easily☜Human judges can be fooled by unintelligent machines. ☜FFFACD
⇤
Operational interpretation is too rigid
Operational interpretation is too rigid☜If thinkings operationally defined, systems that pass the test are necessarily intelligent: systems that fail necessarily unintelligent. But this is too rigid. Intelligent machines could fail the test and unintelligent machines could pass the test.☜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
□
James Moor
James Moor☜Arguments advanced by James Moor.☜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
□
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
<<
<
July 2024
>
<<
July 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
27
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
28
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
29
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
30
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
31
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
32
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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:
#2791
Node type:
Protagonist
Entry date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:25:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:25:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
17
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