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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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