Here are my thoughts on the Turing Test...
Being fooled by a computing device into thinking that one has been communicating with a "thinking" being, does not necessarily imply that the device was in fact thinking. We are constantly being "fooled" by our cognitive processes into thinking that the world is continuous in nature, whereas according to modern physics the world is actually particulate in nature. For example, the continuity that we see in water is a macroscopic average, an illusion produced by our inability to visually resolve the discrete molecules of water. In other words, our erroneous impressions do not make reality other than what it is.
On the other hand, if the Turing Test were a valid method to decide whether a computing device is an entity capable of thought, then perhaps we are also misled into "thinking" that we are thinking beings...that is, if we passed the Turing Test.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Deep, I agree with your thoughts on the Turing test that communicating with a thinking being does not necessarily mean that the device was thinking. I think a lot of what you are touching on is that, our perception of reality is reality for us. If I understand what you are saying in your comment, then I agree with you that the Turing test does not seem like an adequate way to determine if the machine is actually “thinking.” In my opinion, the only way to truly understand if the machine is thinking, in the true sense of the word, would be, to be that machine yourself. Much like the saying goes, that you can only understand a person if you have walked in his or her shoes, I believe you can only know if something truly thinks, with a conscious self awareness, if you are of the same species of that being. In the past, many have debated whether animals have souls, or have consciousness. To me this is a similar argument, the reality is that, unless we are that being, we just don’t know.
I very much agree with both your statements. Just because you can have a conversation that mimicks one might have with another human being doesn't mean the computer is going through the same cognitive processes you are.
The part that closed the issue in my mind was when I read that there are certain questions you are not allowed to ask. That seems to void the entire point of demonstrating that one's machine can "think." Having a human being reduce himself to the capicity of a machine in order to put them on the same level proves, in itself, that they cannot go through the same processes we, as humans, do.
Many of the questions could also be for pre programmed answers
i agree as well, i dont think that just because a computer might be able to fool a human into thinking it is indeed a human (even though we are not at that point currently) it does not necessarily mean that the computer (or technilogical device) i in fact using the same cognitive process as humans.
Turing Test to the next level:
...
In Turing Test Two, two players A and B are again being questioned by a human interrogator C. Before A gave out his answer (labeled as aa) to a question, he would also be required to guess how the other player B will answer the same question and this guess is labeled as ab. Similarly B will give her answer (labeled as bb) and her guess of A's answer, ba. The answers aa and ba will be grouped together as group a and similarly bb and ab will be grouped together as group b. The interrogator will be given first the answers as two separate groups and with only the group label (a and b) and without the individual labels (aa, ab, ba and bb). If C cannot tell correctly which of the aa and ba is from player A and which is from player B, B will get a score of one. If C cannot tell which of the bb and ab is from player B and which is from player A, A will get a score of one. All answers (with the individual labels) are then made available to all parties (A, B and C) and then the game continues. At the end of the game, the player who scored more is considered had won the game and is more "intelligent".
...
http://turing-test-two.com/ttt/TTT.pdf
Post a Comment