Can machines think?

in #steemstem6 years ago (edited)

Today I want to give my own perspective on one of my most favorite scientific gems: the Turing test paper aka Computing Machinery and Intelligence.


machine-learning-3161590_640.png

In 1950 Turing published a short paper on the question if machines can think [1]. It was a strange question to ask since the most advanced machines of that time were large calculators. From the end of the 20th up until today it turned into an extremely relevant question. This becomes immediately clear when you check that this paper has been cited more than 10000 times. In this short post I will explain explain Turing's point of view on this question and the relation to human consciousness.


Can machines think?



The question if machines can think is actually horribly vague. It is completely unclear what thinking means. As a human being I am not able to define what human thinking is. This problem was of course also evident to Turing, see page 1 in [1]. In a sense the main aim of Turing's paper is to give a new definition of thinking which is clear and applicable.

We can easily distinguish a human body from a non-human body so let's say that based on biology we can determine who is human. We haven't defined thinking but let us assume that thinking is property of all well-functioning humans. So how do you decide if a non-human, like a machine, thinks?

Let's first do a thought experiment: If you are in a room with somebody who knows no language how do you explain to him/her something you experienced? Since you have no shared language this becomes a difficult task. To explain an experience a method of communication is necessary. Hence, to explain something to someone a communication tool is needed. And of course language is an obvious candidate as a communication tool.


drawing0.png


A game to decide if you are indistinguishable from a human


So let's suppose we have a machine which can speak a language. How do you decide if it can think? Humans can think and humans show to other humans that they are thinking by using language. So Turing argued that if a machine can communicate to you just like a human would then to you it is like another human being. More specifically, Turing devised a test to check this. This test is known as the imitation game or Turing test. Here is my modern version of this test/game:

Imitation game: There is a machine and a human in a room. Let's call the machine Alice and the human Bob. Separated from this room there is a second human. He is called the Interrogator. The Interrogator does not know that Alice is a machine. His aim is to determine who the machine is. He cannot see Alice and Bob but he can ask them questions through a computer chat service which is located in both rooms. Alice and Bob must reply these questions. If the Interrogator cannot determine who the machine is then Alice wins.

This game replaces the question machines can think. In a sense this game is not really a satisfying answer to the thinking problem since human thinking is connected to conscienceness. And this game does not measure conscienceness. Turing also admits this in his paper, see page 12 [1]. But the problem with human conscienceness is that there is no way of measuring it so we cannot devise a game to determine it.


drawing0.png


In conclusion: Can machines think like a human?


As long as we cannot measure conscienceness the question can machines think like humans is not usefull. The best we can do is determine how similar a machine's communication skill is to our own. We can only check how good a machine is at pretending to be a human.


Bonus fact

Turing's paper also contains a part where he discusses problems related to his test and the more general question of thinking machines. On page 17 of [1] Turing writes:

I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extrasensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz., elepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go.

And then he continues with a scenario where the imitation game's Bob is a telepathic receiver. Which leads him to creating a new ESP proof test.


drawing0.png

It is a bit schocking that a paper with such a passage is cited in over 10000 scientific papers.

So I am actually quite curious where Turing got his statistical evidence from. But unfortunately he does not cite any source.


Source

[1] A. M. Turing (1950) Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 49: 433-460.

Top figure by Mohammed Hassan - Pixabay - CC0 Creative commons

Rest of the figures made using inkscape


Owl tax

spotted-eagle-owl-3003320_640.jpg
Photo by Jean van der Meulen - Pixabay - CC0 creative commons



Join steemStem

If you want to know more come and join us at discord: https://discord.gg/BZXkmWw


banner.png

Sort:  

Good article. You might be interesting in my take on the same topic and let me know what you think:

https://steemit.com/steemstem/@procrastilearner/computers-cannot-think-yet

I was about to refer to your article, but you were faster. ^^

I am always very uncomfortable with human consciousness, as we exactly do not know how to strictly define it. And thus the exact meaning of a Turing test (human behavior imitation rather than being conscious)

I don't think that discreteness of machines is a strong argument against the possibility of creating a thinking machine (here with thinking I mean human thinking). It seems that your argument is a bit similar to Turing's argument on page 15 of [1]. He states that since the nervous system is continuous it cannot be modelled by a discrete machine (Turing then continues by writing that a continuous or discrete system is not of importance to the imitation game since you can approximate continuous systems by discrete ones). In terms of current scientific development this argument is not very strong since nowadays we can create pretty good models of isolated nervous systems (at least on a microlevel) this opens the gate to making a brain model.

You have a minor misspelling in the following sentence:

Seperated from this room there is a second human.
It should be separated instead of seperated.

okok corrected it thanks

Did you say this paper was published in 1950? I'm curious to know where he got this statistical evidence from. And indeed it is impossible to define 'thinking' even from the perspective of layman.

I am not sure where he got his statistical evidence from. Turing does not give any citations.

Computer cannot think yet

They work on instructions... I don't want to believe they will because that is no more technology..... That is spiritual

What's your take on a) The Chinese room though experiment and b) the Theseus Paradox when it is applied to individually replacing neurons with circuits, as proposed by Penrose?

In the case of a) it demonstrates that being conscience is not equal to being able to communicate with someone. These concerns were also raised in the paper by Turing.

I had to google the Theseus Paradox. :P In the case of b) I don't think it is possible to re-create a specific human being since quantum mechanics forbids us to copy something exactly. But my opinion is that you can create a close copy of a human brain. So then there is no paradox present.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by mathowl from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.

I personally don't think a machine can think. Take for instance, a machine is programmed to stay in a room. If the room is on fire, the machine would still be in the room, this is because the machine has been programmed never to leave the room, irrespective of any conditions.

So where is the thinking in that??

I mean, if the machine can't decide that, oops I'm gonna get destroyed if I don't leave this room, then it means, machines don't think

Loading...

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70638.80
ETH 3565.34
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.73