OJPP> Vol.2 No.3, August 2012

Updating the Turing Test Wittgenstein, Turing and Symbol Manipulation

DownloadDownload as PDF (Size:62KB) Full-Text HTML PP. 189-194   DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2012.23029

Author(s)    Leave a comment

Carlo Penco

ABSTRACT

In this paper I present an argument against the feasibility of the Imitation Game as a test for thinking or language understanding. The argument is different from the five objections presented by Turing in his original paper, although it tries to maintain his original intention. I therefore call it “the Sixth Argument” or “the Argument from Context”. I show that – although the argument works against the original version of the imitation game – it may suggest a new version of the Turing Test, still coherent with the idea of thinking and understanding as symbol manipulation. In a new form, the main idea which lies behind the original Imitation Game remains untouched by the criticism of Searle’s Chinese room argument and suggest a possible implementation which avoids some of the shortcomings of the original Turing Test.

KEYWORDS


Cite this paper

Penco, C. (2012). Updating the Turing Test Wittgenstein, Turing and Symbol Manipulation. Open Journal of Philosophy, 2, 189-194. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2012.23029.

References

[1] Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2004). Insensitive semantics. A defence of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.
[2] Cohen, P. (2006). If not Turing’s test, then what? AI Magazine, 26, 61-67.
[3] Cole, D. (2009). The Chinese room argument. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition).
[4] Copeland, B. J. (2001). The Turing test. Mind and Machines, 10, 519-539. doi:10.1023/A:1011285919106
[5] French, R. (2000). The Turing test: The frst fifty years. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 115-121. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01453-4
[6] Harnad, S. (1991). Other bodies, other minds: A machine incarnation of an old philosophical problem. Mind and Machines, 1, 43-54.
[7] Harnad, S. (2000). Mind, machines and Turing. The indistinguishability of the indistinguishable. Mind and Machines, 9, 425-445.
[8] Hayes, P., & Ford, K. (1995). Turing test considered harmful. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco: Morgam Kaufman Publishers.
[9] Hayes, P., & Ford, K. (1997). Talking heads—A review of speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists. AI Magazine, 18, 123-125.
[10] Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2011). Critical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Guha, R., & McCarthy, J. (2003). Varieties of contexts. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2116, 290-303.
[12] McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalizing commonsense. New York: Ablex.
[13] Moor, J. H. (2001). The status and future of the Turing test. Mind and Machines, 11, 73-93. doi:10.1023/A:1011218925467
[14] Moor, J. H. (2003) The Turing test. The elusive standard of artificial intelligence. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[15] Luger, G. F. (2005). Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem solving (5th ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
[16] Penco, C. (2010). Essentially incomplete descriptions. European Journal for Analytic Philosophy, 6, 47-66.
[17] Penco, C., & Vignolo, M. (2005). Converging towards what? Pragmatic and semantic competence. In P. Bouquet, & L. Serafini (Eds.), Context representation and reasoning (Vol. 136). CEUR-WS. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-136/
[18] Perry, J. (1997). Indexicals and demonstratives. In R. Hale, & C. Wright (Eds.), Companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 586-612). Oxford: Blackwell.
[19] Rajaraman, V. (1997). Turing test and after. Resonance, 2, 50-59. doi:10.1007/BF02835001
[20] Recanati, F. (2007). Perspectival thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230532.001.0001
[21] Recanati, F. (2010). Truth conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001
[22] Saygin, A. P., Cicekli, I., & Akman, V. (2000). Turing test: 50 years later. Mind and Machines, 10, 463-518. doi:10.1023/A:1011288000451
[23] Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417-457. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00005756
[24] Schweizer, P. (1998). The truly total Turing test. Mind and Machines, 8, 263-272. doi:10.1023/A:1008229619541
[25] Stanley, J. (2005). Language in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[26] Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 1950.
[27] Turing, A. M. (1951). Can digital computers think. BBC 3rd programme. In B. J. Copeland (Ed.), The essential Turing, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. http://www.turingarchive.org/browse.php/B/5
[28] Wilks, Y. (1986). Default reasoning and self-knowledge. Proceedings of the IEEE, 74, 1399-1404. doi:10.1109/PROC.1986.13640
[29] Wittgenstein, L. (1953). The philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
[30] Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books. Oxford: Blackwell.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.