Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 23rd, 2013, 03:24 AM   #81

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittgenstein View Post
Yes,it avoids consciousness entirely and that is why it fails as a test for intelligence.
I misread your post a little, but I think my objection still stands, i.e. that the test is being accused of failing at something which it was never intended to do.
Sicknero is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 23rd, 2013, 03:36 AM   #82
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2008
From: trapped inside a hominid skull
Posts: 6,041

The Turing test is an attempt to say that a computer whose responses are identical to a human's is indistinguishable from a human. The Turing test relies on exclusively measuring intelligent responses. Therefore, by ignoring consciousness the Turing test fails at the task that was ordained for it.
wittgenstein is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 03:47 AM   #83

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittgenstein View Post
The Turing test is an attempt to say that a computer whose responses are identical to a human's is indistinguishable from a human. The Turing test relies on exclusively measuring intelligent responses. Therefore, by ignoring consciousness the Turing test fails at the task that was ordained for it.
Yes. It says nothing about machines being the same as humans and nothing about the relationship between intelligence and consciousness, it wasn't intended to and as such it's pointless to consider its saying anything about the question of whether machines can become conscious.
Sicknero is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 03:55 AM   #84
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2008
From: trapped inside a hominid skull
Posts: 6,041

Indistinguishable in the context of the experiment. Of course I am not saying that if a machine has toes and fingers it is indistinguishable from a human. Toes and fingers are superflous to a definition of what a human is. However,Turing claimed that a machine that gives the same responses as a human would, have shown human traits.Intelligence in this case. I say that the Turing test fails to show intelligence in the subject because it ignores consciousness.
PS: I never said that the Turing test was meant to show consciousness. Actually, I said the opposite. The Turing test ignores consciousness. Therefore,it cannot test for intelligence.

Last edited by wittgenstein; January 23rd, 2013 at 04:03 AM.
wittgenstein is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 04:00 AM   #85
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 8

Nobody deserves rights and ethics!
RichardIII is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 04:12 AM   #86

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittgenstein View Post
Indistinguishable in the context of the experiment. Of course I am not saying that if a machine has toes and fingers it is indistinguishable from a human. Toes and fingers are superflous to a definition of what a human is. However,Turing claimed that a machine that gives the same responses as a human would, have shown human traits.
Intelligence in this case. I say that the Turing test fails to show intelligence in the subject because it ignores consciousness.
I thought his point was that if a machine in such a test can't be distinguished from a human being, then it makes no sense not to say that it's intelligent, because this is the effectively the same standard by which we say the same about humans. This isn't the same thing as thinking that the test can say "This machine is intelligent" (or not) imv.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittgenstein View Post
PS: I never said that the Turing test was meant to show consciousness. Actually, I said the opposite. The Turing test ignores consciousness. Therefore,it cannot test for intelligence.
Yes my error sorry, the asterisks confused me at first But anyway you seem to be saying that where intelligence is, so is consciousness?
Sicknero is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 04:16 AM   #87
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2008
From: trapped inside a hominid skull
Posts: 6,041

Turing would have to say that a calculator that "says" 2+2=4 "is indistinguishable from a human that says "2+2=4". The level of sophistication is superflous. The point is that without consciousness (intentionality,in its philosophical sense,that something refers to something, an on light switch does not refer to an on light) information is meaningless.
wittgenstein is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 04:19 AM   #88
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2008
From: trapped inside a hominid skull
Posts: 6,041

No! I am saying that intelligence is a sub set of consciousness. One can be a dim bulb and still be conscious. However,one cannot lack consciousness and be intelligent. Similarly, all dogs are mammals.However,not all mammals are dogs.
OK,I think I see your point. If you have to be conscious to be intelligent and you are intelligent you must be conscious. Unfortunately, that way of putting it makes a reader think that I am saying that intelligence =consciousness.

Last edited by wittgenstein; January 23rd, 2013 at 04:24 AM.
wittgenstein is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 04:20 AM   #89

Sicknero's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Here to Eternity
Posts: 4,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittgenstein View Post
Turing would have to say that a calculator that "says" 2+2=4 "is indistinguishable from a human that says "2+2=4". The level of sophistication is superflous. The point is that without consciousness (intentionality,in its philosophical sense,that something refers to something, an on light switch does not refer to an on light) information is meaningless.
Yes, exactly! If they were the only questions presented then certainly. It says nothing at all about consciousness or the nature of intelligence, and nor was it meant to.
Sicknero is offline  
Old January 23rd, 2013, 05:06 AM   #90

Brisieis's Avatar
Historian
Member of the Year
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: UK
Posts: 16,033
Blog Entries: 8

A robot can be treated however we like. The only emotions and feelings a robot can show are the feelings that we have programmed it to. No doubt if robots became popular there would be groups started for their 'rights' because some humans would become attatched to them emotionally. But as we even know with fellow humans - just because 'you' are attatched emotionally, it does not mean the other party - robot - is.
Brisieis is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
robot ethics


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is gun rights a good 'state's rights' issue? Chancellor Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 July 23rd, 2013 04:55 PM
Do people prefer robots for domestic help instead of humans? Jake10 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 25 October 26th, 2012 06:33 AM
Role of Robots in Society Master Chief Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 4 March 31st, 2012 06:54 PM
Negative Rights can't exist without Positive Rights philosopher Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 14 August 4th, 2011 05:33 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.