Rethinking Turing and his Test

Posted 12 Sep 2006 at 02:43 UTC by steve Share This

Much like a religious document, the paper in which Alan Turing first described what we know today as the Turing Test has inspired endless debate over what he really meant. Arguments hinge on seemingly insignificant choices of words or phrases. Did Turing really mean "immaterial soul" instead of "immortal soul" when he describes the theological objections to thinking machines? Did Turing really mean "think" or the actions that result from thinking? Stevan Harnad has published a new essay titled, "The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery, and Intelligence" (PDF format). To a large extent, this paper is concerned with listing all the unfortunate wording, lack of definitions, and general annoyances found in Turing's original paper. There are some interesting points raised, however, such as noting that a reasonable definition of "machine" as used by Turing could be "any dynamical, causal, system", which means both toasters and humans qualify as machines.

Confusion vs Evolution/Progression., posted 13 Sep 2006 at 10:35 UTC by marev » (Observer)

Just past theories and a word "thinking",the definition of the word and religious confusion from a while ago.Recently we seem to be making advances and seeing quite an extra bit of human/robotic "evolution" in 2006.

See more of the latest robot news!

Recent blogs

17 Apr 2017 mwaibel (Master)
30 Mar 2017 shimniok (Journeyer)
25 Mar 2017 AI4U (Observer)
25 Feb 2017 steve (Master)
16 Aug 2016 Flanneltron (Journeyer)
9 Jul 2016 evilrobots (Observer)
27 Jun 2016 Petar.Kormushev (Master)
2 May 2016 motters (Master)
6 Nov 2015 wedesoft (Master)
10 Sep 2015 svo (Master)
Share this page