Abstract
In spite of the clarity of the original article, Turing’s Test has been subject to different interpretations. I distinguish three of these, corresponding to my earlier distinction between Strong AI and Weak AI. The two strong Turing Tests are subject to refutation by the Chinese Room Argument, the weak Turing Test is not.
The obvious falsity of behaviorism, on which the strong Turing Test was based, leads one to wonder whatever motivated behaviorism in the first place. It is best construed as a consequence of verificationism. The fact that Turing was led into error by the confusions of behaviorism does not diminish his overall achievement or contributions to philosophy and mathematics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Berkeley, G., 1998, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Jonathon Dancy, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mill, J. S., 1865, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, London.
Searle, J. R., 1980, Minds, brains, and programs, Behavioral and Brains Sciences3: 417–424.
Turing, A., 1950, Computing machinery and intelligence, Mind59(236): 433–460.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Searle, J.R. (2009). The Turing Test: 55 Years Later. In: Epstein, R., Roberts, G., Beber, G. (eds) Parsing the Turing Test. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9624-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6710-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)