Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Bringsjord et al. have not argued that the Turing Test fa... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Bringsjord et al.'s criticism of Turing's response to the Lovelace Objection fails to show that the Turing Test is a poor test for origination.

    Bringsjord et al. have not argued that the Turing Test fails to detect this kind of origination.

    Consciousness & MindPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageConsciousness & Mind

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Bringsjord et al.'s criticism of Turing's response to the Lovelace Objection fai...Human beings originate something on nearly every occasion of conversation by pro...If the Turing Test can detect this kind of sentence-level origination in humans,...

    Similar

    Bringsjord et al.'s criticism of Turing's response to the Lovelace Obj...88%If the Turing Test can detect this kind of sentence-level origination ...81%The Turing Test is a valid test for origination in the sense of contex...76%Historical origin is not merely 'the coming-to-be of what has originat...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: turing-test
    View source passageHide passage
    Bringsjord et al. (2001) claim that Turing’s response to the Lovelace Objection is “mysterious” at best, and “incompetent” at worst (p.4). In their view, Turing’s claim that “computers do take us by surprise” is only true when “surprise” is given a very superficial interpretation. For, while it is true that computers do things that we don’t intend them to do—because we’re not smart enough, or because we’re not careful enough, or because there are rare hardware errors, or whatever—it isn’t true t

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective