I think there is a line of critics that can be added. Turing focused on transmissible knowledge. Typically qualia, this inner feeling attached to sensations (like pain) or perceptions (like the blue of the sky) or more abstract (like feeling that we are right). Those things are not really transmissible. The reader understand what they mean because he experienced those qualia first hand. I think that it has to do with our links to the outside world. Meaning : I can have a model of the world in my mind but I also interact directly with the world. This last part is lacking for machines.
Can it be formalized (I doubt) or measured (much more easy to imagine to test using robots) ? How much is it linked with what we call intelligence ? are open questions...
Appreciate your comment. The question is indeed, if thinking (intelligence) can/needs to be described in behavioural terms. Why? Is it really purely intentional in the sense of a 'logical process' (if that was the property that distinguishes it from 'unintentional' mere survival or propagation)?
I don't have a concrete answer to these questions, but want to point out that, as long as the question is not unambiguously phrased, the answer can be anything, given the lack of clear definition of what terms like 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' really mean. In that case it really seems helpful to revert to the broadest possible response: put it on a lonely island and let it determine itself. That's what human intelligence actually achieves (not in terms of behaviour but of performance). I see no problem with assessing 'thinking'/'intelligence' in a non-behaviouristic way but it's an interesting point.
This may be a silly question, but I’ll ask it anyway. Is there a significant difference between a test that distinguishes the human between two participants and one that’s only presented with one participant and the judge has to determine whether it’s human?
Jul 10·edited Jul 10Liked by Alejandro Piad Morffis
Great essay. I explored something similar regarding Critical Thinking. In it I broke thinking into two structures.
1. Knowlege gathering
2. Logical formulation and reformulation of concepts.
Your essay also highlights just how fluffy the term 'Thinking' really is. The bigger question is what all the other biological processes that influence our thoughts are, like emotions, that a computer doesn't have.
Going to be releasing my piece this month. Getting so much inspiration but also now I want to enrich the idea within your discussions. A wonderful read as usual 😊
Can Machines Think?
The weakness of the Turing test is its behavioristic approach. I presume that was done to provide a basis for empirical assessment.
A non-behavioristic Turing test would look like this:
"A machine is intelligent if you put it out on a lonely island - without any means - and it comes up with a civilization after a few generations."
Humans have done it.
"The proof is in the pudding."
P. S. Intentionally left a few terms unclear, like "a few generations".
I think there is a line of critics that can be added. Turing focused on transmissible knowledge. Typically qualia, this inner feeling attached to sensations (like pain) or perceptions (like the blue of the sky) or more abstract (like feeling that we are right). Those things are not really transmissible. The reader understand what they mean because he experienced those qualia first hand. I think that it has to do with our links to the outside world. Meaning : I can have a model of the world in my mind but I also interact directly with the world. This last part is lacking for machines.
Can it be formalized (I doubt) or measured (much more easy to imagine to test using robots) ? How much is it linked with what we call intelligence ? are open questions...
As you ask, I'm inclined to consider seriously whether science can help us here.
Appreciate your comment. The question is indeed, if thinking (intelligence) can/needs to be described in behavioural terms. Why? Is it really purely intentional in the sense of a 'logical process' (if that was the property that distinguishes it from 'unintentional' mere survival or propagation)?
I don't have a concrete answer to these questions, but want to point out that, as long as the question is not unambiguously phrased, the answer can be anything, given the lack of clear definition of what terms like 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' really mean. In that case it really seems helpful to revert to the broadest possible response: put it on a lonely island and let it determine itself. That's what human intelligence actually achieves (not in terms of behaviour but of performance). I see no problem with assessing 'thinking'/'intelligence' in a non-behaviouristic way but it's an interesting point.
Fantastic post! Enjoyed reading it a lot.
This may be a silly question, but I’ll ask it anyway. Is there a significant difference between a test that distinguishes the human between two participants and one that’s only presented with one participant and the judge has to determine whether it’s human?
Great essay. I explored something similar regarding Critical Thinking. In it I broke thinking into two structures.
1. Knowlege gathering
2. Logical formulation and reformulation of concepts.
Your essay also highlights just how fluffy the term 'Thinking' really is. The bigger question is what all the other biological processes that influence our thoughts are, like emotions, that a computer doesn't have.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/do-you-really-think-critically
Congratulations on finishing this piece! I know you wanted to get it right, and I think it came together really well. I just shared with my readers.
Going to be releasing my piece this month. Getting so much inspiration but also now I want to enrich the idea within your discussions. A wonderful read as usual 😊