
"Intelligent Machinery" by A.M.Turing - ColinWright
http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/archive/l/l32/L32-001.html
======
burgerbrain
I think the realization that humans are merely computational systems is one of
the more important parts of my life.

~~~
rgbrgb
I don't think 'realization' is really the right word unless you have proof.

~~~
burgerbrain
I don't have evidence to suggest anything else.

My previous theory on human intelligence involved a supernatural belief. Any
other alternative that I can conceive of, besides the computation theory,
similarly rely on supernatural beliefs.

I reject the assumed suggestion that I must have evidence to reject the
supernatural. Or, in simpler terms, dualism requires evidence while monism
does not (although it of course has it, in great quantity).

~~~
rgbrgb
All I'm saying is that in biological sciences, exactly how we "work" (and in
particular, how our brains work) is still very much an open question, just as
whether a machine can have intelligence is an open question in computer
science. Unfortunately not having evidence for other theories does not even
come close to proof of the theory in question.

~~~
yters
As long as all of reality runs on mathematics then AI is possible. I think
many commonly assume that reality is inherently mathematical, but don't
realize their assumption.

------
jackfoxy
I've often been stumped why the notion of "strong AI" cannot be successfully
refuted. On the one hand any analog system can be modeled to arbitrary
precision by a digital one; and on the other hand it is also a fallacy to
mistake a model for the thing itself (at least from the perspective of
Aristotelian logic). The notion consciousness just arises at some level of
complexity is a deus ex machina expectation, and not scientific, but this is
not the argument the best proponents of strong AI put forward. Instead, I
think the clincher argument itself points out the limitations of science.
Science is based on observation. If intelligence is an observed phenomena (and
I'm still not satisfied we have an adequate definition; it seems more of an I
know it when I see it definition) then clearly, machines can be intelligent
(but conscious !!??).

~~~
yters
Just because something is an observed phenomena doesn't mean it is the result
of mathematical laws and therefore replicable by a computer. While that may be
the most acceptable position in today's intellectual climate, it isn't a
logical necessity.

~~~
burgerbrain
Unless the universe contains mechanisms to allow more powerful computation
models than we are aware of, then I cannot see how it could possibly not be
possible.

Intelligence is observed in nature in little pieces of meat that arose through
natural selection. The notion that it is doing anything that possibly
_couldn't_ fall under the umbrella of computation is one that does not
logically make sense. The only _logical_ position to assume is that until
brains can be _demonstrated_ to be solving problems that Turing machines
cannot, they must be assumed to be computationally equivalent.

~~~
yters
No, in the realm of logical necessity, there is nothing necessitating observed
phenomena be the product of computations. I could state this in terms of
Kolmogorov complexity: there could be specific events with higher KC than the
origin of the universe. I don't see anything inherently incoherent about that
statement.

It doesn't fit within modern deterministic/stochastic metaphysics, but that's
besides the point.

------
rgbrgb
Anyone have a more readable version of this?

~~~
rgbrgb
Also a classic --
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2251299.pdf?acceptTC=tru...](http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2251299.pdf?acceptTC=true)

~~~
wging
And that same classic, not behind a paywall --
<http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html>

