0

I know Turing Test and functionalism respectively but get confused about:

  1. What is the influence of Turing Test on functionalism? (I suppose Turing Test is both behaviorist and functionalist.)
  2. Is there any objection to Turing Test from the functionalist perspective?

I have read functionalism and Turing test on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I cannot figure out my question.

I am a beginner in philosophy. Any help will be much appreciated!

  • Turing test is a test of ostensible intelligence, functionalism is a doctrine about the nature of mental states. I suppose it would be natural for a functionalist to adopt the Turing test as indicating the presence of mental states (since it is a test of intelligent functioning), but they really address two different issues. – Conifold Apr 28 at 11:04
1

If a machine can function in a way that there is no discernible difference between the machine and an actual human mind, (perfectly pass every Turing test) then functionalism would seem to say that we have created an actual mind.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part.

John Searle would disagree.
The Chinese Room Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18SXA-G2peY

| improve this answer | |
-1

Observation of functionality has an elusive viewport in a philosophy of Mind .. to begin with an argument against philosophical mantra. A Turing test must define a perfect mind state as a reference from every perspective accountable. This state remains deterministic.

It is imaginable a chess playing robot may pass a Turing test, until an actual human mind random freewill choice & error is factored in.

Functionalism has no license in Agency to an outcome beyond deterministic. Further, It cannot determine predictive analysis beyond outcomes which are anticipated from statistical IF THEN, ELSE ..behavioural models. However branched or programmatically equipped.

Therefor there is objection to the Turing test from a functional perspective of mind.

Organic Life seeks temperate comfort,  so too Spirit has sought out an embodiment to enhance further contemplation.  Division is either Holy manifestation, or accident. That it is rampant, only serves an edifice to quantitative Power..

Division in Abundance. Yet man lives an illusory life , seeking that which is Greater .. This must be a program. Otherwise leading to Condensation.    Illusion is prescribed medicine, and metered punishment .. Yet a child is taught fantasy..   Adults thrive on Fiction.

This is a firm proof of confinement imposed on an untrained mind , otherwise able to utilise devious expression to maintain acceptable worldly standards.  Nature is devious.

The mind must be devious to survive , a Holy incantation of Spirit as divided into being.

How can anyone be bored ?  Except thru undeveloped mutation , that is disconnected from purpose (deviation into Self organising structures)..  Widely found in this species.

Recently it appears the philosophical world and deterministic science together, stumbled across the concept of meshing Agency assignment into AI .. and argument between linguists and logicians as to the nature of free-will continue ad nauseum.

  The industry is stuck in ancient legacy systems. WE are not. Now, there are coders who recognize data structures as the foundation basis upon which ANY software is applied.

Software that entraps the mind into algorithmic fantasy such as RDBMs with recursive labels/ that increase complexity indexing recursive joins.. do nothing for AI

A logical mind asks "what has AI got to do with algorithmic fantasy or data modelling in RDBMs.. How many functions can hold intermediate results, until time to connect finds opportunity ?

Philosophers have a laziness to dismiss what does not agree with their limited capacity to join or entertain concepts that may lead to new ground.  Logicians have the same problem.

 Dennets reference from,  Intentional Stance : (not agreeing with opinions) yet this serves to exemplify proximity to "software"  to the intrinsic human program, each of us run, internally. NO freewill there, U are compelled to run however badly revised version of a multi-vantage point perspective of basic desire that is conveniently translated to a deterministic Cartesian space.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.