{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PH100 Lecture Notes

Machine has to fool more than one judge consistently

Info iconThis preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
* Machine has to fool more than one judge – consistently Machines = computers “Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?” Is Turing providing us with a definition of intelligence? Saying machines are “intelligent” doesn't meant they are providing all the correct/accurate answers – it's their ability to have a conversation. If it passes the Turing test, then a computer is intelligible → sufficient condition for intelligence But the Turing test must not be understood as a necessary condition for intelligence. That is, not all intelligent beings must be able to pass the Turing test. There are many ways in which intelligence is manifested. Why single out conversing? What's special about having a conversation about something? Talking is unique among intelligent abilities. It manages to gather within it all other abilities. To have a conversation one needs to be prepared for all possible questions. One also needs to know certain facts about language, idioms, ways of talking, irony, etc. Two questions: 1. Is Turing correct to hold that a machine thinks if it can perform well in the imitation game? 2. Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game? Turing considers 9 objections Question: What are they objecting to? Are they supposed to say that no machine can be intelligent? Or are they supposed to show that passing the Turing test is not a sufficient condition of being intelligent? (1) Theological Objection - only beings that have souls can think - machines do not have souls - therefore, machines do not think Turing gives a theological response to the objection: The theological objections asserts that only souls can think. It also asserts, however, that animals do not have souls. But according to Turing, there is no good reason to think that. Furthermore, if God can grant a soul to human beings, wouldn't it also be possible for him to grant a soul to a machine To insist that God could not do so, is to limit God's power. (2) “Heads in the Sand” Objection - not a proper objection - worry: if machines can think, then humans will not be the most superior creation (3) Mathematical Objection - developments in mathematics and logic have shown that computers cannot answer every question - nonetheless, humans can answer those questions
Background image of page 2

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
- Turing's response: humans can't answer every question either. So why should that count against machines? (4) Argument from Consciousness - only conscious beings/entities can think - machines are not conscious - therefore, machines cannot think Turing: how do you determine that one have consciousness? So, if we accept that other human beings are conscious, then we must also accept that we can determine whether they are conscious by examining their behavior.
Background image of page 3
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}