The turing test and the interface problem: a role for the imitation game in the methodology of cognitive science

Journal title PARADIGMI
Author/s Marcello Frixione
Publishing Year 2016 Issue 2015/3
Language English Pages 20 P. 129-148 File size 84 KB
DOI 10.3280/PARA2015-003008
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Il problema dell’interfaccia (interface problem) consiste nel rendere conto delle relazioni che sussistono tra le nozioni psicologiche del discorso quotidiano e i resoconti scientifici del mentale. E’ probabile infatti che, nello sviluppo di una visione scientifica, naturalistica dell’uomo, saremo costretti ad abbandonare molte nozioni psicologiche ordinarie, che potrebbero risultare inadeguate rispetto agli scopi e ai metodi dell’indagine naturalistica. Tuttavia, la costruzione di modelli simulative di (parti di) un sistema cognitivo sotto la forma di artefatti e la verifica delle loro prestazioni attraverso una forma di test di Turing, potrebbe, almeno in linea di principio, consentirci di "reimmergere" le spiegazioni naturalistiche della cognizione nel mondo della nostra esperienza ordinaria, al fine di verificarne la corrispondenza con le nozioni del discorso mentale quotidiano e con le intuizioni del senso comune.

Keywords: Interface problem, Naturalization of cognition, Naturalization of reference, Philosophy of cognitive science, Simulations in cognitive science, Turing test

  1. Bermúdez J.L. (2005). Philosophy of psychology. New York-London: Routledge.
  2. Block N. (1981). Psychologism and behaviorism. Psychological Review, 90: 5-43. DOI: 10.2307/2184371
  3. Block N. (1995). The mind as the software of the brain. In: Osherson D., Gleitman L., Kosslyn S., Smith E. and Sternberg S., eds. An invitation to cognitive science. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  4. Bloomfield L. (1933). Language. London: George Allen and Unwin.
  5. Chella A. and Manzotti R. (2012). Jazz and machine consciousness: towards a new Turing test. In: Müller V.C. and Ayesh A., eds. Revisiting Turing and his test: comprehensiveness, qualia, and the real world. Hove (East Sussex, UK): The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour: 49-53.
  6. Chomsky N. (1992). Explaining language use. Philosophical Topics, 20: 205-31. (Reprinted in: Chomsky [2000]).
  7. Chomsky N. (1995). Language and nature. Mind, 104: 1-61. Also in Chomsky (2000). DOI: 10.1093/mind/104.413.1
  8. Chomsky N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511811937
  9. Copeland B.J. (2000). The Turing test. Minds and Machines, 10: 519-539. DOI: 10.1023/A:1011285919106
  10. Churchland P.S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: toward a unified science of the mind/brain. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  11. Churchland P.M. (1992). A neurocomputational perspective: the nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  12. Churchland P.M. (1999). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. In: Lycan W.G., ed., Mind and cognition: an anthology, 2nd Edition. Malden (MA): Blackwell.
  13. Cordeschi R. (2002). The discovery of the artificial: behavior, mind and machines before and beyond cybernetics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-9870-5
  14. Cordeschi R. (2008). Steps toward the synthetic method: symbolic information processing and self-organizing systems in early artificial intelligence. In: Husbands P., Holland O. and Wheeler M., eds. The mechanical mind in history. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262083775.003.0010
  15. Epstein R., Roberts G. and Beber G. (2009). Parsing the Turing test. Philosophical and methodological issues in the quest for the thinking computer. Berlin-New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6710-5
  16. Evans J.S.B.T. and Frankish K.E., eds. (2008). In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Fodor J. (1980). Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 63-73. (Reprinted in: Haugeland [1981]). DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00001771
  18. French R. (1990). Subcognition and the limits of the Turing Test. Mind, 99: 53-65. DOI: 10.1093/mind/XCIX.393.53
  19. Frixione M. (2010). On naturalising reference, with some considerations on the simulative method in cognitive science. Unpublished manuscript. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3280.4325
  20. Harnad S. (1989). Minds, machines and Searle. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence, 1: 5-25. DOI: 10.1080/09528138908953691
  21. Harnad S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42: 335-346. DOI: 10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6
  22. Harnad S. (1991). Other bodies, other minds: a machine incarnation of an old philosophical problem. Minds and Machines, 1: 43-54.
  23. Harnad S. (2001). Minds, machines and Turing. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9: 425-445. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008315308862
  24. Hayes P. and Ford K. (1995). Turing test considered harmful. Proceedings of 14th IJCAI, 1: 972-977.
  25. Haugeland J., ed. (1981). Mind design. Philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  26. Kahneman D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  27. Machery E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306880.001.0001
  28. Moor G.H., ed. (2003). The Turing test. The elusive standard of artificial intelligence. Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0105-2
  29. Oppy G. and Dowe D.L. (2011). The Turing test. In: Zalta E.N., ed. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Standford: Standford University Press.
  30. Pylyshyn Z. (1984). Computation and cognition: toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  31. Saygin A.P., Ciceckli I. and Akman V. (2000). Turing test: 50 years later. Minds and Machines, 10, 4: 463-518. DOI: 10.1023/A:1011288000451
  32. Shannon C.E. and McCarthy J., eds. (1956). Automata studies. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
  33. Stainton R.J. (2006). Meaning and reference. Some Chomskian themes. In: Lepore E. and Smith B., eds. The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Stanovich K. and West R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 23, 5: 645-65. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435
  35. Tamburrini G. (2015). Machine intelligence sports as research programs. Paradigmi, 3: 163-177.
  36. Turing A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 236: 433-60.
  37. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 4: 293-315. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
  38. Wason P.C. (1966). Reasoning. In: Foss B.M., ed. New horizons in psychology, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

  • 2017 4th International Conference on Opto-Electronics and Applied Optics (Optronix) Sohini Mukherjee, Ashish Kumar Gupta, Sarif Aziz, Tariq Aziz, Pratik Jaiswal, Souvik Chatterjee, pp.1 (DOI:10.1109/OPTRONIX.2017.8349979)

Marcello Frixione, The turing test and the interface problem: a role for the imitation game in the methodology of cognitive science in "PARADIGMI" 3/2015, pp 129-148, DOI: 10.3280/PARA2015-003008