Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: The Turing Test, Consciousness and Imago Dei

  1. #21
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,772
    Amen (Given)
    19782
    Amen (Received)
    6353
    Quote Originally Posted by Smash Boy View Post
    Hey guys, Iím new here, recently registered. Okay now that thatís outta the way, I wanted to bring a philosophical problem regarding consciousness, so as you see, itís 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 canít 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 donít 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?

  2. #22
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,772
    Amen (Given)
    19782
    Amen (Received)
    6353
    Quote 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 Ďfeelingsí 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?

  3. #23
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,772
    Amen (Given)
    19782
    Amen (Received)
    6353
    Quote 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?

  4. Amen Sparko amen'd this post.
  5. #24
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,028
    Amen (Given)
    1221
    Amen (Received)
    1262
    Quote Originally Posted by Smash Boy View Post
    Hey guys, Iím new here, recently registered. Okay now that thatís outta the way, I wanted to bring a philosophical problem regarding consciousness, so as you see, itís 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 canít 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 donít 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?

  6. #25
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,992
    Amen (Given)
    1277
    Amen (Received)
    878
    Quote 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? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  7. #26
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,028
    Amen (Given)
    1221
    Amen (Received)
    1262
    Quote 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.

  8. #27
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,379
    Amen (Given)
    3884
    Amen (Received)
    19027
    Quote 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"

  9. #28
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,992
    Amen (Given)
    1277
    Amen (Received)
    878
    Quote 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? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  10. #29
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,992
    Amen (Given)
    1277
    Amen (Received)
    878
    Quote 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? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  11. #30
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41,379
    Amen (Given)
    3884
    Amen (Received)
    19027
    Quote 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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •