Updating the Turing Test Wittgenstein, Turing and Symbol Manipulation
- 1 University of Genoa
Abstract
In this paper I present an argument against the feasibility of the Imitation Game as a test for thinking or language understanding. The argument is different from the five objections presented by Turing in his original paper, although it tries to maintain his original intention. I therefore call it “the Sixth Argument” or “the Argument from Context”. I show that – although the argument works against the original version of the imitation game – it may suggest a new version of the Turing Test, still coherent with the idea of thinking and understanding as symbol manipulation. In a new form, the main idea which lies behind the original Imitation Game remains untouched by the criticism of Searle’s Chinese room argument and suggest a possible implementation which avoids some of the shortcomings of the original Turing Test.
- Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2004). Insensitive semantics. A defence of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Cohen, P. (2006). If not Turing’s test, then what? AI Magazine, 26, 61-67.
- Cole, D. (2009). The Chinese room argument. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition).
- Copeland, B. J. (2001). The Turing test. Mind and Machines, 10, 519-539. doi:10.1023/A:1011285919106
- French, R. (2000). The Turing test: The frst fifty years. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 115-121. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01453-4
- Harnad, S. (1991). Other bodies, other minds: A machine incarnation of an old philosophical problem. Mind and Machines, 1, 43-54.
- Harnad, S. (2000). Mind, machines and Turing. The indistinguishability of the indistinguishable. Mind and Machines, 9, 425-445.
- Hayes, P., & Ford, K. (1995). Turing test considered harmful. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco: Morgam Kaufman Publishers.
- Hayes, P., & Ford, K. (1997). Talking heads—A review of speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists. AI Magazine, 18, 123-125.
- Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2011). Critical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Guha, R., & McCarthy, J. (2003). Varieties of contexts. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2116, 290-303.
- McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalizing commonsense. New York: Ablex.
- Moor, J. H. (2001). The status and future of the Turing test. Mind and Machines, 11, 73-93. doi:10.1023/A:1011218925467
- Moor, J. H. (2003) The Turing test. The elusive standard of artificial intelligence. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Luger, G. F. (2005). Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem solving (5th ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
- Penco, C. (2010). Essentially incomplete descriptions. European Journal for Analytic Philosophy, 6, 47-66.
- Penco, C., & Vignolo, M. (2005). Converging towards what? Pragmatic and semantic competence. In P. Bouquet, & L. Serafini (Eds.), Context representation and reasoning (Vol. 136). CEUR-WS. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-136/