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.
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
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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostTo 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJust 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Smash Boy View PostI agree. But so far, as elusive the Test is, no machine so far has achieved what Alan Turing had in mind.
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
-
Originally posted by Smash Boy View PostAs 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).
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
-
Originally posted by Smash Boy View PostHey 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)?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
-
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. . . .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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostTo 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.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
-
Originally posted by Smash Boy View PostHey 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)?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostDoesn't this test assume that being able to answer questions is all that constitutes consciousness?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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostThe 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.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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAnother 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"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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI believe that present technology is capable of simulating natural conversation from text. Robotics in Japan has achieved considerable success in achieving this.
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
|
172 responses
597 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment