The Turing Test

Is the Turing Test a sufficient test? That is, if a machine passes the test, would you agree it is intelligent?

If intelligence could be defined only as the ability to solve problems, then I believe a machine that passes the Turing Test could be considered intelligent. But I do not believe this definition is sufficient in describing intelligence. Just because a machine passes a test, merely by answering questions via a mechanical link, in such a manner that a human cannot distinguish the machine from another human, does not mean it is intelligent. It seems to me that passing the test would be more indicative of the machine’s ability to mask the fact that it is a machine.

Perhaps this could be compared to a female who has had surgery to remove her breasts, to implant an artificial penis, and has taken hormones to deepen her voice and to grow more facial hair. This female might give the impression of being a male. In spite of appearing as a male, she is a female, at least according to the biological definition of her gender at birth. Even if she went through the motions of acting like a male, would that mean she is male?

In my opinion, this is a matter of semantics. Perhaps new vocabulary words need to be invented that could more specifically address the nebulous boundaries of a word such as “intelligence”, when attributed to inanimate objects such as computers. And for that matter, such words as “male” and “female”, when attributed to individuals who experience gender identity issues.

Is the Turing Test a necessary test? That is, does a machine have to pass this test in order to be intelligent?

I do not believe it is necessary that a machine pass the Turing Test in order to be considered intelligent. For example, a computer is able to solve problems and one might consider this to be intelligent, based on the definition of being able to “solve problems”. A machine that can answer questions in such a way as to deceive someone into believing the machine is human is, in my opinion, not necessary for determining whether or not the computer is intelligent.

Will a machine ever pass the Turing Test? Why or why not?

I do not believe a machine will ever pass the Turing Test. This test requires that an interrogator question a hidden entity, which is either a computer or another human being. The questioner must then decide, based solely on the hidden entity’s answers, whether he had been interrogating a man or a machine. Although a computer could respond to questions, I do not believe the computer could think like a human being. I think we saw a little bit of what this would be like when we explored the A.L.I.C.E. website. Although the computer could appropriately answer many of the questions, there were times when the syntax of the computer’s responses were not appropriate for the questions. Or there were times when the computer was not programmed to answer the question and tried to hide its “ignorance” by changing the subject, not answering the question, or by asking its own question. I am not saying a human being wouldn’t do the same thing. But given enough opportunities to receive an answer from a computer, I feel that, eventually, the interrogator would be able to figure out that the computer was not a human. In other words, at some point in time, the computer would just come across as fake or unreal.

Will a machine ever be intelligent? Why or why not?

Again, this depends on the definition of “intelligent”. If intelligent means “thinking” as a human, then, no, I do not think a machine will ever be intelligent. I believe a machine’s intelligence is simulated, not real. Simulated actions which might be interpreted as “thinking” or “intelligent” are a result of the human minds that programmed the computer. If one defines intelligence as including information processing, memory, storage, retrieval, assimilation, and synthesis, then a machine might be described as being intelligent. However, if consciousness is a part of intelligence, then machines, being man-made, could not be described as intelligent.

How Does the Mind Work?

How Does the Mind Work?

I believe that mind is universal and each living thing is part of this mind. Mind, in my opinion, is infinite. I believe mind is acted upon by our thoughts. We think, and mind creates. Every time we think, we set our mind into action. Our minds do not impose judgments; and therefore, mind has to reflect our thoughts. Mind simply knows, but does not analyze or dissect. I believe mind is eternally acting upon thought, continually producing its own images from mind, and projecting them out into manifestation. In my opinion, most people think of mind only from the limitation of their own environment. The concept of mind is the concept of their thinking, which is very limited. But maybe this description of mind is too philosophical or metaphysical for the question posed.

I do not believe that objects such as trees, clouds, etc. have inherent meaning in and of themselves. Humans attach meaning to objects based on their experience. Experience also influences our ability to attach meaning to the relationships that exist between objects. For example, when an infant looks at a cloud he/she does not know the name, the function, or the relationship between the cloud and the sky; however, repeated exposure and personal experience will develop understanding of the cloud and its relationship to the sky.

We are able to read an assignment, make meaning from it, and associate responses in our mind, again, based on our prior experience. Being able to read develops from the awareness that spoken words are represented by written symbols. Being able to read also develops from the awareness that specific letters and letter combinations form sounds, which can be blended into meaningful words. However, in order for the word to be meaningful, the reader must also have some experience with that which the word represents.

Making a decision, such as planning a route from point A to point B also relies upon experience. The experience could include the know-how of reading a map. Perhaps a personal experience of having made the trip in the past could impact the decision. For example a positive experience might impact one’s choice to repeat the same route, whereas a negative experience might persuade one to alter the route.

I believe the mind absorbs all experiences. Our senses, including a psychic sense and who knows how many other senses of which we are not aware, beyond the basic five, are the channels by which this information is assimilated. Our capacity to attach meaning to objects and their relationships to other objects, to make decisions, or to read, in my opinion, is based on experience. Experiencing something then causes us to act, feel, and think. We do not necessarily have control over the experience, but I believe we do have control over how we choose to think and act. I’m not sure we have control over our feelings, as much as our feelings are indicators of the thoughts and actions we choose.