Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Turing Test, Consciousness and Imago Dei

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Even if we did make life possessing hnau as C.S Lewis called it, or imago dei which personally i think is impossible it would prove that intelligence and deliberate planning are necessary for life.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      To me the turing test doesn't prove anything other than how gullible the person who is testing is. What fools one person might not fool someone else. Also even if the machine could pass the test, all it proves is that it can fake being intelligent. It doesn't prove that it has consciousness or can actually think for itself. It just means it is good at the Turing test.
      These are exactly the thoughts of people like Mark Halpern when he addressed the Test even granting the scenario where the computer does pass.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Just as some would want it to be murder to kill and eat animals. I see it all as a dark and consistent effort to undermine the uniqueness of human beings. We are no better or different than animals, and now in this case machines.
        I agree. But so far, as elusive the Test is, no machine so far has achieved what Alan Turing had in mind.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Smash Boy View Post
          I agree. But so far, as elusive the Test is, no machine so far has achieved what Alan Turing had in mind.
          um,,,

          http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088

          but like you said, it probably wasn't what Turing had in mind. Not some rigged chatbox event, but having an actual extended conversation with the bot and a person with no conditions or limits. And not having a bot that pretends to be an ignorant foreign teenager to cover up the bots errors.
          Last edited by Sparko; 12-18-2017, 11:40 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Smash Boy View Post
            As a Christian, I agree, but suppose you are debating a non-believer; would you solely base your responses on biblical (and sound) responses, or would you add a secular response, like the Chinese Room Argument?

            Just to be clear, I don’t think any AI developed so far has passed the Turing Test or even if the Turing Test is a legitimate method in identifying humanity in AI’s save Sophia (but even her [or it?] she hasn’t been reported to pass the Turing test).
            The 'Turing Test' is history, and yes a computer passed the test.

            Source: http://mashable.com/2014/06/12/eugene-goostman-turing-test/#yffkJXgezPq0


            Eugene Goostman is a smart-ass teenager, living in Ukraine and currently conducting conversations with inquisitive souls around the world. There's only one problem: Eugene is not a boy, he's a program. And he — or it — made headlines earlier this week when a new version of the chat bot finally passed a version of the Turing Test.

            Developed by PrincetonAI (a small team of programmers and technologists not affiliated with Princeton University) and backed by a computer and some gee-whiz algorithms, "Eugene Goostman" was able to fool the Turing Test 2014 judges 33% of the time — good enough to surpass the threshold set by computer scientist Alan Turing in 1950. Turing believed that by 2000, computers would be able to, through five-minute text-based conversations, fool humans into believing that they were flesh and blood, at least 30% of the time. Depending on whom you talk to, Goostman's achievement is either a huge turning point for technology, or just another blip.

            © Copyright Original Source



            I do not believe test nor the fact that the test was busted resulted in any conclusive evidence of machine intelligence equivalent to human intelligence, but I do not consider it a difficult task to achieve this in the near future.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Smash Boy View Post
              Hey guys, I’m new here, recently registered. Okay now that that’s outta the way, I wanted to bring a philosophical problem regarding consciousness, so as you see, it’s about AI and the Imago Dei. For those not familiar with the Turing Test, this is basically what it is in a nutshell:

              You have three individuals, one has to interact with two (who he/she can’t see), and writes down certain questions a human being would ask. The two individuals interrogated are a conputer and a human being. The goal of the interrogator is to be able to find a way to distinguish between the two as he/she asks the questions and receives answers (that don’t have to be true or false). If the interrogator fails to distinguish between the machine and the human being, the computer passes the test.

              The implications here is not only if the computer passes the test, will it show it can think, but that it can be said to have comsciousness like us. There are objections to the assumptions and methodologies on this Test, one is Mark Halpern who criticized the Test in an article published on The new Atlantis, but before we get into that, I wanted you guys, particularly Christians in here; to tell me what are your thoughts. Can it really be said that a machine has genuine consciousness and thus, an imago Dei, or is it mereley a simulatin. If the latter, how can you tell (epistemically)?
              Simulation.
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Smash Boy View Post
                . . . . approach in which we are forced to construct a criteria to distinguish us from machines who think,act and behave and even have ‘feelings’ just like us to differentiate us even when both cases they have consciousness. . . .
                If you have to create programing for it you do not have real consciousness.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  To me the turing test doesn't prove anything other than how gullible the person who is testing is. What fools one person might not fool someone else. Also even if the machine could pass the test, all it proves is that it can fake being intelligent. It doesn't prove that it has consciousness or can actually think for itself. It just means it is good at the Turing test.
                  In other words you have a very good program, not a person.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Smash Boy View Post
                    Hey guys, I’m new here, recently registered. Okay now that that’s outta the way, I wanted to bring a philosophical problem regarding consciousness, so as you see, it’s about AI and the Imago Dei. For those not familiar with the Turing Test, this is basically what it is in a nutshell:

                    You have three individuals, one has to interact with two (who he/she can’t see), and writes down certain questions a human being would ask. The two individuals interrogated are a conputer and a human being. The goal of the interrogator is to be able to find a way to distinguish between the two as he/she asks the questions and receives answers (that don’t have to be true or false). If the interrogator fails to distinguish between the machine and the human being, the computer passes the test.

                    The implications here is not only if the computer passes the test, will it show it can think, but that it can be said to have comsciousness like us. There are objections to the assumptions and methodologies on this Test, one is Mark Halpern who criticized the Test in an article published on The new Atlantis, but before we get into that, I wanted you guys, particularly Christians in here; to tell me what are your thoughts. Can it really be said that a machine has genuine consciousness and thus, an imago Dei, or is it mereley a simulatin. If the latter, how can you tell (epistemically)?
                    Doesn't this test assume that being able to answer questions is all that constitutes consciousness?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Doesn't this test assume that being able to answer questions is all that constitutes consciousness?
                      No, there is more to the test than that. The computer program has to be able to convince people it is a human not only in answering question, but also in dialogue.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        No, there is more to the test than that. The computer program has to be able to convince people it is a human not only in answering question, but also in dialogue.
                        The computer can only convince one that it is conscious if it can't be seen which I assume is why it's not being visible is stipulated. If you are sitting in front of the computer no dialogue no matter how conscious sounding is going to convince anyone that the computer in front of them is conscious. Thinking and communicating is only part of what consciousness is.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          No, there is more to the test than that. The computer program has to be able to convince people it is a human not only in answering question, but also in dialogue.
                          Another problem with the current test is that they seem to be limited to text interfaces. Even a human being can't have a natural conversation in text. We tend to shorten our answers, consolidating words, etc. Where in natural conversations, people will express themselves, show emotions, etc, which a machine just can't do. So the tests are "rigged"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            The computer can only convince one that it is conscious if it can't be seen which I assume is why it's not being visible is stipulated. If you are sitting in front of the computer no dialogue no matter how conscious sounding is going to convince anyone that the computer in front of them is conscious. Thinking and communicating is only part of what consciousness is.
                            I already acknowledged the tests are limited, but nonetheless the Truing Test has been achieved.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Another problem with the current test is that they seem to be limited to text interfaces. Even a human being can't have a natural conversation in text. We tend to shorten our answers, consolidating words, etc. Where in natural conversations, people will express themselves, show emotions, etc, which a machine just can't do. So the tests are "rigged"
                              I believe that present technology is capable of simulating natural conversation from text. Robotics in Japan has achieved considerable success in achieving this.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                I believe that present technology is capable of simulating natural conversation from text. Robotics in Japan has achieved considerable success in achieving this.
                                that's not even what I said. I said that the human even has a hard time simulating a natural conversation in text. so it makes it harder for another human to determine if even a human is human based only on text conversations.

                                OK I am calling it folks. Shunyadragon is an AI. He failed the Turing Test.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X