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
    Bringsjord et al.'s objection targets only a superficial ... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Turing's response to the Lovelace Objection is not poor and he had the resources to provide a satisfactory reply.

    Bringsjord et al.'s objection targets only a superficial reading of 'surprise' and does not undermine Turing's deeper point.

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?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

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    The Turing Test is a valid test for origination in the sense of contextually app...Turing's response to the Lovelace Objection is not poor and he had the resources...Whether computers can originate in this sense remains an open question, meaning ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consciousness & Mind
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection targets probability revision witho...77%Bringsjord et al.'s criticism of Turing's response to the Lovelace Obj...77%Van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection targets rule-based confirmation, n...76%Transcendental arguments do not fully answer skeptical doubts, even if...76%

    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