text 6. complement ii

8/11/2019 Text 6. Complement II

1/21

Can (non-human) machines think?

Alan Turing:

Computing Machinery andIntelligence


2/21

What is a computer?

A person who makes calculations or computations; a

calculator, a reckoner;spec.a person employed to

make calculations in an observatory, in surveying,

etc. Now chiefly hist. [OED]

ENIAC: Electronic Numerical Integrator and

Computer (1946) was the worlds first electronic

Turing complete computer. [Wiki]


3/21

Logic Gate: A Simple Computer


4/21

More Gates, Smaller Package


5/21

30 years: 250,000 times more RAM

1985:

Kaypro: 64 KB RAM

2012:

Mac: 16 GB RAM


6/21

Could Computers Think?

What isthinking?

Turing means more than mere calculating.

What kindsof things can think?

Human beings?

Non-human animals?

Computers?

How can we tellif something can think? How do I know if you are a thinking thing?

How do I knowthatyouare conscious?


7/21

Turing:

The realquestion concerns how it is that wecan tellif something is thinking.

Turing offers a functional definition ofthinking:

A thing thinks if it meets the same behavioral

criteria as do the paradigm cases of thinkingthings,

i.e., if it acts (in the relevant ways) the same way thathuman beings act.


8/21

The Imitation Game:

Played with 3 people a man (A), a woman

(B), and an interrogator (C).

The interrogator stays in a room apart from

the other two.

The interrogator asks questions and tries to

determine, from the answers, which answerer

is the man and which is the woman.


9/21

Turings Strategy

Instead of asking whether or not a computer

can think,

How could we measurethat?

Ask instead whether or not a computer could

successfully play the imitation game, and

fool a questioner trying to figure out which

answers come from a human.

This is at least something we can measure.


10/21

Turings Imitation Game


11/21

Can digital computers be made to play

satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation

game?

The new problem has the advantage of

drawing a fairly sharp line between thephysical and the intellectual capacities of a

man.

i.e., by looking at the answers provided (rather

than what the answerer looks like, etc.), it

focuses on what is essential to thinking.


12/21

Turing:

I believe that it will be possible to program

computers, with a storage capacity of 109[i.e.,

10 gigabytes], to make them play the imitation

game so well that an average interrogator will

not have more than 70% chance of making the

right identification after five minutes of

questioning.


13/21

Turings Claim

Any computer (hardware plus software plusdata) that can successfully play the imitationgame

i.e., one that can provide answers to our questionsto it that we cant distinguish from the answers

provided by a human being

thinks!

I have no more reason to deny that it isconscious or has inner states than I do to denythatyoudo.


14/21

Turings Reasoning

The Imitation Game gives us afunctional definition(a behavioral criterion) for whether or not somethingcan think.

Since we cant look inside other peoples mindsthis is the best criterion we can get.

If computers can successfully play the imitation

game, then they meet the behavioral criterion, and so(we would have no reason to deny that) they think. So, if it quacks like a duck, its a duck!


15/21

Objection: The Argument from

Consciousness

1) Only things which are conscious

(i.e., that have conscious mental states)can think.

2) Computers are not conscious (i.e.,

do not have conscious mental states). 3) Therefore, computers cannot think.


16/21

Turings Response:

But how do we knowthat computers arentconscious?

Isnt this essentially the same question we are discussing

i.e., whether or not computers can think?

The objection begs the question:

The real question is whether or not computers can beconscious. The objection just assumesthat they cannot.

How can we tell if other human beings are consciousthat other human beings can think?


17/21

Who thinks?

I am pretty sure thatIthink!

I am directly aware of my own thoughts.

How can I tell if someone (something) elsethinks?

If I need to be directly aware of their thoughts,

then I cant know anyone thinks except me.

If I dont need to be directly aware of their

thoughts, I must rely on observablecriteria.

The Turing Test provides such criteria.


18/21

I Think: Do You?


19/21

The upshot:

I cant see anyones conscious mental states butmy own.

All I can see is their behavior (how they answerquestions, etc.).

If I judge that other people think, simply on thebasis of observing their behavior, without directlyseeing their conscious mental states, then I mustreach the same conclusion about computers.

Alternately put: If I deny that computers can thinkbecause I cant see their inner states, then I willhave to deny that other humans can think, for thesame reason. This is solipsism.


20/21

Conclusion:

The criteria we in factuse to attribute thinking(consciousness) to other human beings are behavioral.

These criteria concern linguistic behaviorhow a think talks, not whatit looks like.

If these are the criteria I use with other human beings, it wouldbe inconsistent to demand some higher standard ofcomputers.

So, if a computer could meet the same standards of linguisticbehavior as do other human beings (i.e., if it could

successfully play the imitation game), we must, on pain ofinconsistency, claim that it thinks,i.e., that it is conscious.


21/21

Underlying Assumptions?

Personal Reflections

How dowe tell that some other being (human or

non-human) thinks or is conscious?

Is it really by observing their behavior?

Arent infants/pets aware of their parents/owners

emotions (mental states)?

Are they inferring this on the basis of the linguistic

behavior they observe?

Did you have to learnthat others are conscious?

text 6. complement ii

Documents