Feb
11
Computing Machinery and Intelligence
Filed Under Uncategorized
So we all have been taking the Apgar test for the past few weeks in class and initially, I was a bit skeptical of the system because I felt it was a waste of valuable time in a class that needs all the time in the world. Well, I never thought I’d say this, but I digress. This week, I can proudly put a “2” for the question that asks about how long I spent reading something relevant to the course material. The Apgar test encouraged me to read an unassigned article in the Intro to New Media Studies textbook that I found very fascinating. It was called “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” by Alan Turing. I’d encourage anyone to read it if you’re interested about Artificial Intelligence or New Media studies in general. The question of whether machines have souls or not is even considered which was really piqued my interest.
Turing’s paper is insightful because it takes a different approach to viewing machines as thinking entities. Turing doesn’t want to answer whether or not “machines can (in fact) think,” as much as whether or not they can fool a human to believe that they are human in an imitation game. Had Turing argued the former argument, he would have hit a dead end with his reasoning, but his latter argument provides a lot of gas mileage and various ways to get to his destination.
One of the more significant and well-formed arguments he makes in terms of whether or not machines can think is in his counterargument, ”The Theological Objection.” The most convincing aspect of the argument is when Turing approaches the problem from a philosophical point of view and questions how, for example, I know my classmates have a soul? Unless I can go inside them and see that they have a soul, how do I know that they aren’t just illusions or soulless creatures? I’d go even further and argue to those who contend that we are the only creatures that have souls: how do you know? Have you ever seen your soul? Have you ever died and gone to Heaven or Hell and then somehow resurrected from the dead to enlighten the masses? The theological objections goes as far as to say that animals don’t have souls either, which stands as a testament to its lack of authority in the matter because as far as I know, the only thing that separates humans from a dog is our ability to acquire language among other physical and intellectual characteristics, but the argument of a presence of soul is scientifically unfounded.
Turing argues that the same exact thing can be said about machines because for those who think that animals and machines don’t have souls, unless they can find a way to get inside them, then they don’t deserve to argue about something as if it’s objective.