If I Were Judge

  • Selmer Bringsjord

Abstract

I have spent a lot of time through the years attacking the Turing Test and its variants (e.g., Harnad’s Total Turing Test). As far as I am concerned, my attacks have been lethal, but of course not everyone agrees. At any rate, in the present paper I shift gears: I pretend that the Turing Test is valid, put on the table a proposition designed to capture this validity, and then slip into the shoes of the judge, determined to deliver a correct verdict as to which contestant is the machine, and which the woman. My strategies for separating mind from machine may well reveal some dizzying new-millennium challenges for Artificial Intelligence.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Turing Test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J. and Etchemendy, J., 1994, Hyperproof, CSLI, Stanford, CA.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bringsjord, S., 1992, What Robots Can and Can’t Be, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bringsjord, S., 1995, Could, how could we tell if, and why should-androids have inner lives? in: Android Epistemology, K. Ford, C. Glymour, and P. Hayes, eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 93–122.Google Scholar
  4. Bringsjord, S. and Ferrucci, D., 2000, Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity: Inside the Mind of Brutus, a Storytelling Machine, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Bringsjord, S. and Noel, R., 2002, Real robots and the missing thought experiment in the Chinese room dialectic, in: Views into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence, J. Preston and M. Bishop, eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 144–166.Google Scholar
  6. Bringsjord, S. and Schimanski, S., 2003, What is Artificial Intelligence? – Psychometric AI as an answer, Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp. 887–893.Google Scholar
  7. Bringsjord, S. and van Heuveln, B., 2003, The mental eye defense of an infinitized version of Yablo’s paradox, Analysis 63(1): 61–70.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Bringsjord, S. and Zenzen, M., 2003, Superminds: People Harness Hypercomputation, and More, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Bringsjord, S., Ferrucci, D., and Bello, P., 2001, Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (better) Lovelace test, Minds and Machines 11: 3–27.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, P., Just, M., and Shell, P., 1990, What one intelligence test measures: a theoretical account of the processing in the Raven progressive matrices test, Psychological Review 97: 404–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Descartes, R., 1911, The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Vol. 1, translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Dickmann, M. A., 1975, Large Infinitary Languages, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebbinghaus, H. D., Flum, J., and Thomas, W., 1984, Mathematical Logic, Springer, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson-Laird, P., 1997a, Rules and illusions: a critical study of Rips’s, The Psychology of Proof, Minds and Machines 7(3): 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson-Laird, P. N., 1997b, An end to the controversy? A reply to Rips, Minds and Machines 7: 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson-Laird, P. and Savary, F., 1995, How to make the impossible seem probable, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 381–384.Google Scholar
  17. Kafka, F., 1948, The metamorphosis, in: The Penal Colony, F. Kafka, T. W. Muir, and E. Muir, eds., Schocken Books, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Karp, C., 1964, Languages with Expressions of Infinite Length, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Keisler, H., 1971, Model Theory for Infinitary Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Kugel, P., 1990, Is it time to replace Turing’s test? Paper presented at Artificial Intelligence: Emerging Science or Dying Art Form?, sponsored by AAAI and the State University of New York’s program in Philosophy and Computer and Systems Sciences, the University at Binghamton, New York, June 27.Google Scholar
  21. Raven, J. C., 1962, Advanced Progressive Matrices Set II, H. K. Lewis, London. Distributed in the USA by The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  22. Searle, J., 1980, Minds, brains and programs, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3: 417–424; http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/MindsBrainsPrograms.html.
  23. Turing, A., 1950, Computing machinery and intelligence, Mind 59(236): 433–460.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Yablo, S., 1993, Paradox without self-reference, Analysis 53: 251–252.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Selmer Bringsjord
    • 1
  1. 1.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy,NewyorkUSA

Personalised recommendations