Lost in the hermeneutic hall of mirrors
Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
CNLS '89 Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference of the Center for Nonlinear Studies on Self-organizing, Collective, and Cooperative Phenomena in Natural and Artificial Computing Networks on Emergent computation
Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
Lessons from a restricted Turing test
Communications of the ACM
Communications of the ACM
Turing Test and the Frame Problem: Al's Mistaken Understanding of Intelligence
Turing Test and the Frame Problem: Al's Mistaken Understanding of Intelligence
Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence
Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence
Minds and Machines
Journal of Logic, Language and Information
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Undecidability in the Imitation Game
Minds and Machines
Turing's test and believable AI in games
Computers in Entertainment (CIE) - Theoretical and Practical Computer Applications in Entertainment
Scientific Issues Concerning Androids
International Journal of Robotics Research
Imitation Versus Communication: Testing for Human-Like Intelligence
Minds and Machines
The interrogator as critic: The turing test and the evaluation of generative music systems
Computer Music Journal
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Turing's celebrated 1950 paper proposes a very generalmethodological criterion for modelling mental function: total functionalequivalence and indistinguishability. His criterion gives rise to ahierarchy of Turing Tests, from subtotal (“toy”) fragments of ourfunctions (t1), to total symbolic (pen-pal) function (T2 – the standardTuring Test), to total external sensorimotor (robotic) function (T3), tototal internal microfunction (T4), to total indistinguishability inevery empirically discernible respect (T5). This is a“reverse-engineering’ hierarchy of (decreasing) empiricalunderdetermination of the theory by the data. Level t1 is clearly toounderdetermined, T2 is vulnerable to a counterexample (Searle's ChineseRoom Argument), and T4 and T5 are arbitrarily overdetermined. Hence T3is the appropriate target level for cognitive science. When it isreached, however, there will still remain more unanswerable questionsthan when Physics reaches its Grand Unified Theory of Everything (GUTE),because of the mind/body problem and the other-minds problem, both ofwhich are inherent in this empirical domain, even though Turing hardlymentions them.