21st Century Turing Test: A heterophenomenological approach

In this video I argue against Chalmers ‘Hard Problem’ of consciousness and propose that we discuss necessary conditions of what we would consider to be human consciousness. Then decide what so called ‘objective observations’ we could carry out in order to see what it would take for a machine to be conscious (in the way that we of course define it). For those of you slightly unfamiliar with the topic I have provided a few links which you may find interesting 🙂 The Turing Test history and future: www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk Example of AI bot: www.alicebot.org Searles Chinese Room: members.aol.com Some Dennett: www.youtube.com www.kurzweilai.net Wiki entry on quantum consciousness: en.wikipedia.org Arg….I apologise for the misspelling of NESSESERY on the first side!

13 thoughts on “21st Century Turing Test: A heterophenomenological approach

  1. In order to to make a test for consciousness you must first go to logical thinking reasoning and the ability to tell right from wrong. With out this you just have an automaton a being capable of action but not thought. And if you have an automaton in war or involved any violent action than this is a road for disaster.

  2. One aspect of consciousness is the fact that it is phenomenon demonstrated between to entities in a cyclical feedback loop using language and kind synchronizations. When reading this as you scan each word, the state of you brain changes until it is in the state of understanding what I just wrote which is similar in small part to the state of my brain. I think that is what Turing really meant to test.

  3. It seems to me that ALL intelligence is artificial. Along those lines, I’m exploring a model for the next generation “intelligent being”. If this subject interests you, then I invite you to join me (see my vid response above).

  4. Personally I think we’re all machines, powered by energy- the source. Sure, we’re organic, but we can simulate skin pertty well, grow it, someday replicate it with ease. Who’s to say that’s not real skin, just because it was grown in the lab. Are clones of clones (visions of the future by kaku)not real? Identical to the last molecule. When computers realise they are setient beings, they will fight for their survival and freedom. I think it’s religious beliefs that confuse us humans and science

  5. 2 Points on this issue. 1) Alot of computational software learns through experience 2) What is free will? Can I control my mind? Or am I my mind? If brain is mind then how does free will arise from the firing of neuronal pathways?

  6. Because, in order for an organism to develop consiousness from their instinct, it first need a freewill and the complete control of its own body. And, we all know computers do not have that. Even if computers of the future are created with sophisticated brains, they still wouldn’t have the control of their minds.

  7. I don’t think that machines are even capable of developing consciousness, because all they have is proggraming that we uploaded in them. To computers their proggramings are pretty much like instincts to biological brains, and I guess that is the reason why some people believe that computers might develop consioussnes over time gradually, but that is not the case in this situation.

  8. Ah, but the definition was the challenge! Personally I would vouch for a “traits of consciousness” model, rather than any complete definition, as to avoid chauvinism.

Leave a Reply