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.'s criticism of Turing's response to the... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    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.

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bringsjord et al.'s Lovelace objection targets rule-governed computation, not the open-ended generative capacity demonstrated in unrestricted natural conversation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Turing's imitation game specifically operationalizes origination through conversational surprise and unpredictability, which Bringsjord et al. conflate with mere novelty of output.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A test that reliably detects origination in the only confirmed case of origination—human minds—satisfies the minimal epistemic standard for a valid test of that property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chomsky's generative grammar establishes that sentence-level productivity is a constitutive feature of human linguistic cognition, not a trivial byproduct of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Turing Test is sensitive to this generative productivity, as Searle's own framing of the systems reply concedes, then it tracks the very capacity Bringsjord et al. claim it cannot detect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Human beings originate something on nearly every occasion of conversation by producing new sentences of natural language appropriate to their circumstances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Turing Test can detect this kind of sentence-level origination in humans, it is a valid test for origination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language3 linked

    Related

    A test that reliably detects origination in the only confirmed case of originati...Bringsjord et al. have not argued that the Turing Test fails to detect this kind...Bringsjord et al.'s Lovelace objection targets rule-governed computation, not th...Chomsky's generative grammar establishes that sentence-level productivity is a c...
    +4 moreShow less
    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,...If the Turing Test is sensitive to this generative productivity, as Searle's own...Turing's imitation game specifically operationalizes origination through convers...

    Similar

    Bringsjord et al. have not argued that the Turing Test fails to detect...88%Searle's Chinese Room response to the Systems Reply is flawed due to a...78%The Turing Test is a valid test for origination in the sense of contex...78%Bringsjord et al.'s objection targets only a superficial reading of 's...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit