You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Who's Afraid of the Turing Test?
Behavior and Philosophy
Vol. 20/21, Vol. 20, no. 2 - Vol. 21, no. 1 (1993), pp. 63-74
Published by: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (CCBS)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27759284
Page Count: 12
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Turing test, Mind, Humans, Flight tests, Artificial intelligence, Machinery, Test theory, Games, Information processing, Pragmatism
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The Turing Test is a verbal-behavioral operational criterion of artificial intelligence. If a machine can participate in question–and–answer conversation adequately enough to deceive an intelligent interlocutor, then it has intelligent information processing abilities. Robert M. French has argued that recent discoveries in cognitive science about subcognitive processes involving associational primings prove that the Turing Test cannot provide a satisfactory criterion of machine intelligence, that Turing's prediction concerning the feasibility of building machines to play the imitation game successfully is false, and that the test should be rejected as ethnocentric and incapable of measuring kinds and degrees of nonhuman intelligence. But French's criticism is flawed, because it requires Turing's sufficient conditional criterion of intelligence to serve as a necessary condition. Turing's Test is defended against these objections, and French's claim that the test ought to be rejected because machines cannot pass it is deemed unscientific, resting on the empirically unwarranted assumption that intelligent machines are possible.
Behavior and Philosophy © 1993 Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (CCBS)