|
|
|
![]() | ||
Can machines think? That was the question with which Alan
Turing opened his famous paper of 1950, 'Computing machinery and
intelligence'. The question was not exactly new, but the answer
he gave opened up a new era in our thinking about
minds. It had been more or less agreed up to that time that
consciousness required a special and particularly difficult kind of
explanation. If it didn't require spiritual intervention, or outright
magic, it still needed some special power which no mere machine could
possibly reproduce. Turing boldly predicted that by the end of the
century we should have machines which everyone habitually treated as
conscious entities, and his paper inspired a new optimism about our
ability to solve the problems. But that was 1950. I'm
afraid that fifty years of work since then have effectively shown that the
answer is no - machines can't think | ||||
|
| ||||
A little
premature, I think. You have to remember that until 1950 there was
very little discussion of consciousness. Textbooks on
psychology never mentioned the subject. Any scientist who tried to
discuss it seriously risked being taken for a loony by his colleagues. It
was effectively taboo. Turing changed all that, partly by making the
notion of a computer a clear and useful mathematical concept, but also
through the ingenious suggestion of the
Turing
Test . It transformed the
debate and during the second half of the century it made
consciousness the hot topic of the day, the one all the most
ambitious scientists wanted to crack: a subject eminent academics would
take up after their knighthood or Nobel. The programme got under
way, and although we have yet to achieve anything like a full human
consciousness, it's already clear that there is no insurmountable barrier
after all. I'd argue, in fact, that some simple forms of artificial
consciousness have already been achieved. | ||||
|
| ||||
But Turing's
deadline, the year 2000, is past. We know now that his
prediction, and others made since, were just wrong. Granted, some progress
has been made: no-one now would claim that computers can't play chess. But
they haven't done that well, even against Turing's own test, which in
some ways is quite undemanding. It's not that computers failed it;
they never got good enough even to put up a serious candidate.
You say that consciousness used to be a taboo subject, but perhaps it was
just that earlier generations of scientists knew how to shut up when they
had nothing worth saying... | ||||
|
| ||||
|
But really I'm wasting my breath - you've just got a closed mind on the subject. Let's face it, even if I presented you with a perfectly human robot (even if I suddenly revealed that I myself had been a robot all along), you still wouldn't accept that it proved anything, would you? | ||||
|
| ||||
Your version of Turing sounds
relatively sensible, but I just don't think his paper bears that
interpretation. As for your 'perfectly human' robot, I look forward
to seeing it, but no, you're right, I probably wouldn't think it proved
anything much. Imitating a person, however brilliantly, and
being a person are two different
things. I'd need to know what was going on inside the robot, and have
a convincing theory of why it added up to real consciousness.
| ||||
|
| ||||
No theory
is going to be convincing if you won't give it fair consideration.
I think you must sometimes have serious doubts about the so-called
problem of other minds. Do you actually feel sure that all your fellow
human beings are really fully conscious
entities?
| ||||
|
| ||||
Well... | ||||
|
| ||||