Click here to download

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 
Year:  2015 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  20 Pg. 129-148 FullText PDF:  84 KB
DOI:  10.3280/PARA2015-003008
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

The interface problem is the problem of accounting for the relations between the psychological notions of everyday discourse and scientific explanations of the mental. It is likely that in order to develop a scientific, naturalistic view of human beings we should dispense with many ordinary psychological notions that turn out to be inadequate for the aims and the methods of naturalistic inquiry. However, constructing simulative models of (parts of) a cognitive system in the form of artifacts and checking their performance through a form of Turing Test may, at least in principle, allow us to "plunge" our naturalistic explanations of cognition back into the world of ordinary experience, in order to test their correspondence to the notions of our everyday mental discourse and to our common-sense intuitions.
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.

Marcello Frixione, in "PARADIGMI" 3/2015, pp. 129-148, DOI:10.3280/PARA2015-003008


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content