Advertisement

Alan Turing’s Concept of Mind

  • Rajakishore NathEmail author
Article

Abstract

In the mid of nineteenth century, the hypothesis, “machine can think,” became very popular after Alan Turing’s article on “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” This hypothesis, “machine can think,” established the foundations of machine intelligence and claimed that machines have a mind. It has the power to compete with human beings. In the first section, I shall explore the importance of Turing thesis, which has been conceptualized in the domain of machine intelligence. Turing presented a completely different view of the machine itself. It addressed philosophers, rather than the mathematicians, and proclaimed that digital computers might be considered as intelligent machines. This approach was wholly new, both philosophically and technically, and started many philosophical debates which continue to this day. He proposed an imitation game, as a test, what is now referred to as a Turing test to evaluate if a machine thinks. That is to say that the main aim of machine intelligence not only constructs challenging programs to solve our day-to-day problems but also reproduce mentality in machines and claimed that all the mental qualities are ascribable to machines. What will be attempted in this paper is a critical evaluation of the arguments against the Turing test put forward by many philosophers.

Keywords

Turing machines Imitation game Machine intelligence Cognitive process Mind 

Notes

References

  1. Brown, R. J., & Norcia, A. M. (1997). A method for investigating binocular rivalry in real-time with the steady-state VEP. Vision Research,37(170), 2401–2408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Churchland, P. S. (1989). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified understanding of the mind/brain. USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis,58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dennett, D. C. (1981). Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, H. L. (1979). What computers cannot do: The limits of artificial intelligence. New York: Harper Colophon Books.Google Scholar
  6. Edelman, G. M. (2004). Wider than the sky: The phenomenal gift of consciousness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Haikonen, P. O., & Brains, R. (2007). Circuits and systems for conscious machines. England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Laureys, S. (2006). The boundaries of consciousness: Neurobiology and neuropathology. The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Logothetis, N. K., Leopold, D. A., & Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). What is rivalling during binocular rivalry? Nature,380(6575), 621–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lucas, J. R. (1964). Mind, machines, and Gödel. In A. R. Anderson (Ed.), Minds and machines (pp. 43–59). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Lumer, E. D., et al. (1998). Neural correlates of perceptual rivalry in the human brain. Science,280(5371), 1930–1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McGinn, C. (1987). Could a machine be conscious? In Mindwaves: Thoughts on intelligence, identity, and consciousness, Colin Blakemore and Susan Greenfield: Basil Blackwell Ltd., Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Nath, R. (2009a). Machine intelligence, competence and creativity. Artificial Intelligence and Society,23(3), 441–458.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0080-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nath, R. (2009b). Philosophy of artificial intelligence. Florida: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Nath, R. (2015). Turing & His Critics. Ravenshaw Journal of Philosophy, 1, 40–53.Google Scholar
  16. Penrose, R. (1989). The emperor’s new mind. Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind. Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pradhan, R. C. (2002). Why consciousness cannot be deconstructed: Towards a positive theory of consciousness. In S. Menon, A. Sinha, & B. V. Sreekanthan (Eds.), Science and metaphysics: A discussion on consciousness (pp. 98–106). Bangalore: National Institute of Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  19. Putnam, H. (1975/1985). Mind, language, and reality: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Putnam, H. (1989). Representation, and reality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Putnam, H. (1998). Renewing philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,3(3), 417–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Searle, J. R. (1994). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Searle, J. R. (1996). Minds, brains and science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Searle, J. (1998). How to study consciousness scientifically. Brain Research Reviews,26(2/3), 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shagrir, O. (2005). The rise and fall of computation functionalism. In Y. Ben-Menahem (Ed.), Hilary Putnam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tononi, G., et al. (1998). Investigating neural correlates of conscious perception by frequency-tagged neuromagnetic responses. In Proceedings of the national academy of science of the United States of America (Vol. 95, pp. 3198–3203).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind,59(236), 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Velpula, S., & Nath, R. (2019). Consciousness is the concomitance of life. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research,36, 167–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-018-0165-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weizenbaum, J. (1967). Contextual understanding by computers. Communication for ACM,10(8), 474–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICPR 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HSSIIT BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations