Skip to main content

The Cartesian Test for Automatism

  • Chapter
The Turing Test

Part of the book series: Studies in Cognitive Systems ((COGS,volume 30))

  • 592 Accesses

Abstract

In Part V of his Discourse on the Method, Descartes introduces a test for distinguishing people from machines that is similar to the one proposed much later by Alan Turing. The Cartesian test combines two distinct elements that Keith Gunderson has labeled the language test and the action test. Though traditional interpretation holds that the action test attempts to determine whether an agent is acting upon principles, I argue that the action test is best understood as a test of common sense. I also maintain that this interpretation yields a stronger test than Turing’s, and that contemporary artificial intelligence should consider using it as a guide for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  • Adler, M.J. (1967)The Difference of Man and the Difference it MakesNew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1966)Cartesian LinguisticsNew York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottingham, J. (1978), ‘A Brute to the Brutes?’Philosophy53, pp. 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A.R. (1994)Descartes’ ErrorNew York: G.P. Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D.C. (1991)Consciousness ExplainedBoston: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1985)The Philosophical Writings of Descartestrans. and ed. by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, and A. Kenny, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cited in text as CSM.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Egenhofer, M. and Mark, D.M. (1995), ‘Naive Geography’, in A.U. Frank and W. Kuhn, eds.Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS, BerlinNew York: Springer, pp. 1–15.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erion, G.J. (2000), Common Sense: An Investigation in Ontology, Epistemology, and Moral Philosophy, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forguson, L. (1989)Common SenseNew York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, K. (1964), ‘Descartes, La Mettrie, Language, and Machines’Philosophy39, pp. 193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamad, S. (1991), ‘Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation of an Old Philosophical Problem’Minds and Machines1, pp. 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, L. (1993), ‘Reaping the Whirlwind’Minds and Machines3, pp. 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, P.J. (1985a), ‘Naive Physics 1: Ontology for Liquids’, in J.R. Hobbs and R.C. Moore, eds.Formal Theories of the Common-Sense WorldNorwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 71–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, P.J. (1985b). ‘The Second Naive Physics Manifesto’, in J.R. Hobbs and R.C. Moore, eds.Formal Theories of the Common Sense WorldNorwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, R. (1982), ‘Tradition and Modernity Revisited’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes, eds.Rationality and RelativismOxford: Basil Blackwell pp. 201–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiber, J. (1989), ‘Re(ad) Me; Re(ad) Myself’Philosophy and Literature13, pp. 134–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, J. (1986)A Border Dispute: The Place of Logic in PsychologyCambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radner, D. and Radner, M. (1989)Animal Consciousness.Buffalo: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radner, D. and Radner, M. (1995), ‘Cognition, Natural Selection, and the Intentional Stance’International Studies in the Philosophy of Science9, pp. 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1971), ‘Knowing How and Knowing That’, inCollected Papers of Gilbert RyleVol. II. New York: Barnes and Noble, pp. 212–225. (Original work published in 1945.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S.M. (1994), ‘Lessons From a Restricted Turing Test’Communications of the ACM 37pp. 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (1994), ‘The Structures of the Common-Sense World’, in S. Poggi, ed.Gestalt Psychology: Its Origins Foundations and InfluenceFirenze: L.S. Olschki, pp. 209–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A.M. (1950), ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’Mind59, pp. 433–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Erion, G.J. (2003). The Cartesian Test for Automatism. In: Moor, J.H. (eds) The Turing Test. Studies in Cognitive Systems, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0105-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0105-2_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1205-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0105-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics