Advertisement

How to Pass a Turing Test

Syntactic Semantics, Natural-Language Understanding, and First-Person Cognition
  • William J. Rapaport
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Cognitive Systems book series (COGS, volume 30)

Abstract

I advocate a theory of “syntactic semantics” as a way of understanding how computers can think (and how the Chinese-Room-Argument objection to the Turing Test can be overcome): (1) Semantics, considered as the study of relationsbetweensymbols and meanings, can be turned into syntax — a study of relationsamongsymbols (including meanings) — and hence syntax (i.e., symbol manipulation) can suffice for the semantical enterprise (contra Searle). (2) Semantics, considered as the process of understanding one domain (by modeling it) in terms of another, can be viewed recursively: The base case of semantic understanding — understanding a domain in terms of itself — is “syntactic understanding.” (3) An internal (or “narrow”), first-person point of view makes an external (or “wide”), third-person point of view otiose for purposes of understanding cognition.

Key words

Chinese-Room Argument first-person point of view internalism methodological solipsism problem of other minds representative realism rules and representations semantic network semantics SNePS syntax Turing Test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson, R.P., 1968, “Simulation of social behavior,” pp. 274–356 inThe Handbook of Social Psychologyvol. 2, 2nd edn., G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds., Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman, D., 1989, “Penguins,”The New Yorker10 July, 38–67.Google Scholar
  3. Associated Press, 1997, “Opponent bytes at offer for draw with Kasparov,”Buffalo News7 May, A7.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, L.F., 1900The Wonderful Wizard of OzNew York: Dover (1966 reprint).Google Scholar
  5. Berman, J. and Bruckman, A., 1999, “The Turing game,”http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/turing/
  6. Bunn, J.H., forthcoming, “Universal grammar or common syntax? A critical study of Jackendoff’sPatterns in the Mind ” Minds and Machines. Google Scholar
  7. Carnap, R., 1928The Logical Structure of the WorldR.A. George (trans.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (1967).Google Scholar
  8. Colby, K.M., Hilf, F.D., Weber, S., and Kraemer, H.C., 1972, “Turing-like indistinguishability tests for the validation of a computer simulation of paranoid processes,”Artificial Intelligence3, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Damasio, A.R., 1989, “Time-locked multiregional retroactivation,”Cognition33, 25–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennett, D.C., 1971, “Intentional systems,”Journal of Philosophy68, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrlich, K. and Rapaport, W.J., 1997, “A computational theory of vocabulary expansion,” pp. 205–210 inProceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science SocietyMahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Elliott, C. and Brzezinski, J., 1998, “Autonomous agents as synthetic characters,”AI Magazine19, 13–30.Google Scholar
  13. Erion, G.J., 2000, “Common sense: An investigation in ontology, epistemology, and moral philosophy,” Ph.D. Diss., Philosophy Department, SUNY Buffalo.Google Scholar
  14. Fetzer, J.H., 1994, “Mental algorithms: Are minds computational systems?,”Pragmatics and Cog nition2, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fodor, J.A., 1980, “Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology,”Behavioral and Brain Science3, 63–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hafner, K., 1999, “Guessing who is online,”The New York TimesJuly 22.Google Scholar
  17. Hamad, S., 2000, “Minds, machines and Turing: The indistinguishability of indistinguishables,”Journal of Logic Language and Information 9, this issue.Google Scholar
  18. Haugeland, J., 1985Artificial Intelligence: The Very IdeaCambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, R.K., 1994, “Issues of semantics in a semantic-network representation of belief,” Tech. Rep. 94–11, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, R.K., 1995, “Non-well-founded set theory and the circular semantics of semantic networks,” pp. 375–386 inIntelligent Systems: 3rd Golden West International ConferenceE.A. Yfantis, ed., Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Hutchins, E., 1995aCognition in the Wild, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins, E., 1995b, “How a cockpit remembers its speeds,”Cognitive Science19, 265–288. Jackendoff, R., forthcoming, ‘BringingPatternsinto focus: A response to Bunn,“Minds and Machines. Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, G., 1997, “Ghost in the chess machine: Brain or box? Think about it,”The New York Times9 May, Al, B4.Google Scholar
  24. Julesz, B., 1971Foundations of Cyclopean PerceptionChicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J.H., 2000Speech and Language ProcessingEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Kearns, J., 1997, “Propositional logic of supposition and assertion,”Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic38, 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lassègue, J., 1996, ‘What kind of Turing test did Turing have in mind?,“Tekhnema: Journal of Philosophy and Technology3,http://www.gold.ac.ukltekhnema/3/lassegue/read0l.html
  28. Levy, S., 1997, “Man v. machine,”Newsweek5 May, 51–56.Google Scholar
  29. Loebner, H.G., 1994, “In response [to Shieber I994a],”CACM37(6), 79–82.Google Scholar
  30. Maida, A.S. and Shapiro, S.C., 1982, “Intensional concepts in propositional semantic networks,”Cognitive Science6, 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maloney, J.C., 1987, “The right stuff,”Synthese70, 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manin, Yu.I., 1977A Course in Mathematical LogicNew York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. McGilvray, J., 1998, “Meanings are syntactically individuated and found in the head,”Mind and Language13, 225–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morris, C., 1938Foundations of the Theory of SignsChicago, IL: Unversity of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Percy, W., 1975The Message in the BottleNew York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  36. Quillian, M.R., 1967, “Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities,”Behavioral Science12, 410–430.Google Scholar
  37. Quine, W.V.O., 1951, “Two dogmas of empiricism,” reprinted inFrom a Logical Point of View2nd edn., Rev., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980, pp. 20–46.Google Scholar
  38. Rapaport, W.J., 1978, “Meinongian theories and a Russellian paradox,”Noûs12, 153–180; errata, 1979,Noûs13, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rapaport, W.J., 1981, “How to make the world fit our language: An essay in Meinongian semantics,”Grazer Philosophische Studien14, 1–21.Google Scholar
  40. Rapaport, W.J., 1985, “Machine understanding and data abstraction in Searle’s Chinese Room,” pp. 341–345 inProceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science SocietyHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Rapaport, W.J., 1986a, “Philosophy, artificial intelligence, and the Chinese-Room Argument,”Abacus3, Summer, 6–17; correspondence, 1987,Abacus4, Winter, 6–7,Abacus4, Spring, 5–7.Google Scholar
  42. Rapaport, W.J., 1986b, “Searle’s experiments with thought,”Philosophy of Science53, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rapaport, W.J., 1988a, “To think or not to think,”Noûs22, 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rapaport, W.J., 1988b, “Syntactic semantics: Foundations of computational natural-language understanding,” pp. 81–131 inAspects of Artificial IntelligenceJ.H. Fetzer, ed., Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  45. Rapaport, W.J., 1995, “Understanding understanding: Syntactic semantics and computational cognition,” pp. 49–88 inAl Connectionism,and Philosophical PsychologyJ.E. Tomberlin, ed., Phil. Perspectives, Vol. 9, Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  46. Rapaport, W.J., 1996Understanding Understanding: Semantics Computation and CognitionTech. Rep. 96–26, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Computer Science Department;http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/tech-reports/96–26.ps.Z
  47. Rapaport, W.J., 1998, “How minds can be computational systems,”Journal of Experimental Theoretical and Artificial Intelligence 10, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rapaport, W.J., 1999, “Implementation is semantic interpretation,”The Monist82, 109–130.Google Scholar
  49. Rapaport, W.J. and Ehrlich, K., 2000, “A computational theory of vocabulary acquisition,” inNatural Language Processing and Knowledge RepresentationL. Iwafiska and S.C. Shapiro, eds., Menlo Park, CA/Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT (in press).Google Scholar
  50. Schonberg, H.C., 1989, “Kasparov beats chess computer (for now),”New York Times23 October, Al, B2.Google Scholar
  51. Searle, J.R., 1980, “Minds, brains, and programs,”Behavioral and Brain Science3, 417–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Searle, J.R., 1982, “The myth of the computer,”New York Review of Books29 April, 3–6; cf. correspondence, same journal, 24 June 1982, 56–57.Google Scholar
  53. Shapiro, S.C., 1979, “The SNePS semantic network processing system,” pp. 179–203 inAssociative NetworksN. Findler, ed., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  54. Shapiro, S.C., 1995, “Computationalism,”Minds and Machines5, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shapiro, S.C., 1997, “What is computer science?,”http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/-shapiro/Papers/whatiscs.pdf
  56. Shapiro, S.C., 1998, “Embodied Cassie,” pp. 136–143 inCognitive Robotics: Papers from the 1998 AAAI Fall SymposiumTech. Rep. FS-98–02, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.Google Scholar
  57. Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1987, “SNePS considered as a fully intensional propositional semantic network,” pp. 262–315 inThe Knowledge FrontierN. Cercone and G. McCalla, eds., New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1991, “Models and minds: Knowledge representation for natural-language competence,” pp. 215–259 inPhilosophy and AIR. Cummins and J. Pollock, eds., Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  59. Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1992, “The SNePS family,”Computers and Marhenanics with Applications23, 243–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1995, “An introduction to a computational reader of narrative,” pp. 79–105 inDeixis in NarrativeJ.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Shieber, S.M., 1994a, “Lessons from a restricted Turing test,”CACM37(6), 70–78.Google Scholar
  62. Shieber, S.M., 1994b, “On Loebner’s lessons,”CACM37, 83–84.Google Scholar
  63. Simon, H.A. and Newell, A., 1958, “Heuristic problem solving: The next advance in operations research,”Operations Research6(6), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simpson, J.A. and Weiner, E.S.C. (preparers), 1989The Oxford English Dictionary,2nd edn., Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, B.C., 1987, “The correspondence continuum,” Report CSLI-87–71, Stanford, CA: CSLI. Srihari, R.K., 1991, “PICTION: A system that uses captions to label human faces in newspaper photographs,” pp. 80–85 inProceedings of the 9th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence(AAA/—9/), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT.Google Scholar
  66. Srihari, R.K. and Rapaport, W.J., 1989, “Extracting visual information from text: Using captions to label human faces in newspaper photographs,” pp. 364–371 inProceedings of the 11 th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science SocietyHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Stork, D.G., 1997HAL’s LegacyCambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  68. Thagard, P., 1986, “Parallel computation and the mind-body problem,”Cognitive Science 10301–318.Google Scholar
  69. Turing, A.M., 1936, “On computable numbers, with an application to theEntscheidungsproblem”;reprinted, with corrections, 1965 in The Undecidable, M. Davis, ed., New York: Raven, pp. 116–154.Google Scholar
  70. Turing, A.M., 1950, “Computing machinery and intelligence,”Mind59, 433–460.Google Scholar
  71. Wartofsky, M.W., 1966, “The model muddle,” pp. 1–11 inModels: Representation and the Scientific UnderstandingDordrecht: Reidel (1979).Google Scholar
  72. Weizenbaum, J., 1966, “ELIZA — A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine,”CACM9, 36–45.Google Scholar
  73. Williams, B., 1998, “The end of explanation?,”The New York Review of Books45, 40–44 (19 November).Google Scholar
  74. Woods, W.A., 1975, “What’s in a link,” pp. 35–82 inRepresentation and UnderstandingD.G. Bobrow and A.M. Collins, eds., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Rapaport
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Department of Philosophy, and Center for Cognitive ScienceState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations