The Problem of Other Minds (Part III of IV)

09Apr07

So while a case was made for why turning the Modified Turning Test into the Personhood Test, the reasons it fails is because it seems that while a test could prove sufficient for proving intelligence it shouldn’t be portrayed as necessary. So with this in mind it is necessary to discuss how a machine could pass the MTT and another test. (Thus demonstrating conclusively that as long as we accept the other test as valid means of determining intelligence and it uses a different set of criteria then MTT, MTT is not a necessary condition).

But while we abstract it like that it may sound plausible but it is important to make the criteria the MTT uses explicit:

It judges a participant on its understanding of semantics.

So to say that the MTT’s criteria is unnecessary does not seem plausible.

Perhaps we can judge an entity on its behavior. (Searle talks about being sure that his dog is conscious. Based on my understanding, because of the dogs behavior.)

Perhaps this is a valid criteria but I’m not sure.

But I am sure of one thing: the MTT can be used without it turning into a nightmare like the Personhood Test.

The MTT attempts to determine the existence of an entity with an understanding of semantics.

The Personhood Test (the algorithm sensor plus exam) attempts to determine not only the existence of semantics but the correct use of semantics. But the Personhood Test is trying to achieve the impossible: is there a correct understanding of semantics?

While no doubt words have particular meanings and connotations in particular languages, symbols don’t have universal meanings.

But this brings us back to the MTT. It seems it is set to determine not only the existence of semantics but it’s correct usage in association with symbols in a particular language (in our case: English).

So my point is this: doesn’t this merely add an unnecessary hurdle? Why try to not only prove that a computer not only understands semantics but can translate between two languages?

This is a problem that has preoccupied me on and off for months, in the next installment I hope to outline my thoughts in regards to this issue. Most importantly addressing the question of importance: does it really matter in the end?

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment