Surname1

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course Code and Number

Date

Turning’s Test

Introduction

In his book "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Turing devised the "Imitation

Game," which is now known as the Turing test. The test was a procedure that was intended to

answer the question of whether or not "machines can think?" on a fundamental level. An

interrogator, one other individual, and a computer are required to take part in his exam. All of the

subjects are required to be located in three distinct rooms. It is the objective of the interrogator to

ascertain that one of the other two is the machine, which has the ability to ask any questions

about anything. In this article, we will first analyze the objections to the Turing test, and then we

will get into the specifics of the Turing test, along with finding an alternative to answering the

question "Can machines think?" Finally, we will express our thoughts on the Turing test.

Imitation Game

The Turing test was devised to ascertain whether a machine is capable of exhibiting

human-like intelligence. It is presumed that one of the three test subjects is situated in one room,

while the computer is situated in another room. The sender transmits a text message conveying

an inquiry, although lacks knowledge of the respondent's identity. The test participant mistakenly

believes that the respondent is a human, while in fact; it is the machine (Turing 9). The computer

is considered to have successfully passed the Turing test due to its ability to accurately discern

the correct response. If a machine is capable of engaging in a conversation with a human being
 Surname2

without relying on machine-like thinking, it can be said to possess human-like intelligence and

cognitive abilities. Due to the computer's ability to deliver a precise and reliable answer to the

question, we may definitively infer that the machine contains intelligence. The test serves as an

effective means of addressing the question "can machines exhibit intelligence?" Turing believes

that this game has the potential to determine if a machine is capable of thinking, based on the

computer's accurate response.

There were a few criticisms leveled against Turing's test, despite the fact that it may be

considered one of the several approaches to answering the issue "can machines think?" It was

Professor Jefferson who put out the fourth objection, which is also referred to as the condition of

consciousness; he stated that "Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto

because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that

machine equals brain..." Regardless of the noises or actions that the machine performs, the key

points of the argument would be that we cannot state that it is capable of thinking and establish

the solipsist position unless the machine is able to demonstrate that it is capable of feeling the

emotion and understanding it. When one is thinking and is not entirely certain that anybody other

is thinking, Turing is opposed to the solipsist approach since it reveals a lack of communication

between both parties (Turing 10). The response that Turing gives to Jefferson is that the

argument is logical; nevertheless, if this were the case, then there would be no way to

demonstrate that anything or anyone other than oneself is capable of thinking. The concept that

robots are capable of thinking is something that Turing is hoping will come to fruition, and

Jefferson ought to be more open-minded about it. As a result, Turing's response to argument 4,

which attacks his test, maintains his belief that the majority of people will accept his test.
 Surname3

Let us talk about objection number six, which is Lady Lovelace's objection, once we have

finished analyzing objection number four and Turing's solution to it. It is said by Lady Lovelace

that any kind of machine cannot work outside of its original software, and that it can only

accomplish what we humans have programmed it to do. "The Analytical Engine has no

pretensions to originate anything," the analysis engine says, "because it is unable to do anything

other than that or create anything new on its own." It is capable of doing any task that we are

able to instruct it to carry out" (Turing 14). On the basis of this quotation, we are able to draw the

conclusion that intelligent humans are capable of coming up with unique thoughts, acts, and

objects, but robots are incapable of coming up with any of these things since they are not

sentient. "Who can be certain that the original work which he has done was not the growth of the

seed planted in him by teaching?" Turing asks in response to the question, "Who can be certain

that the seed planted in him from teaching?" (15 at the time). Turing responds by stating that we

humans are able to supply a little learning program for the computer, and that over time, the

machine would go through and adapt to its surroundings, as well as add and build new programs

to its existing program. Eventually, we will begin with machines that have programming that are

similar to those of children, and over the course of time, their structures will continue to develop

until they emerge as fully-fledged intelligent machines.

John Searle’s Argument

John Searle’s argument postures a momentous dare concerning the Turing’s opinion on

the Turning Test and machine intelligence. John suggests that in machine can permit the Turning

Test by producing intelligence replies; it cannot fundamentally comprehend the significance

behind individual’s replies (Mario 7). Additionally, John Searle presents a believed trial of an

individual in room succeeding commands to deploy Chinese signs, mimicking conduct of

Chinese narrator to a peripheral spectator. Notwithstanding generating comprehensible replies, a

person in a room cannot apprehend Chinese as they simply trail set of commands minus honest

knowledge. John’s censure emphasizes on the dissimilarity between intelligence simulation and

accurately comprehending it. Additionally, he debates that passing the Turning Test cannot

certainly designate candid intelligence or empathetic portion of the machine which destabilizes

Turning’s proclamation that passing the Turning Test compares to “thinking” and advances

queries about the nature of awareness and considerate.

Personal Opinion

In my opinion, the Turing test is helpful in determining whether or not robots are capable

of "thinking." This is due to the fact that the intelligence of oneself may judge whether or not a

machine possesses the virtual capabilities to think and behave like a person for each participant.

It is possible that the Turing test might be able to assist us in determining whether or not a

machine is capable of genuinely "feeling." However, even if it is not, there are several forms of

intelligence that a computer is capable of mastering, which are comparable to the ways in which

we humans utilize our intellect to do particular jobs. In spite of the fact that Turing's test appears

to be persuasive enough to convince individuals to think, if a machine were to pass the test, then

one could presume that it was thinking. As humans, we tend to believe that we are the only ones

who are capable of thinking, which makes it difficult for us to take into account the possibility

that robots may think for themselves. Supposedly, we are going to return to the topic of learning

machines, and we are going to assert that it is possible for a machine to learn something that its

predecessor was never intended for it to learn. For computers to be able to adapt and learn, the

response that Turing gives to Lady Lovelace's purpose is completely fair.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that many philosophers have questioned its validity, Turing's test has

ultimately been shown to be successful. Even if there are certain machines that are capable of

thinking in the present day, they do not possess the capacity to think outside of their

programming, which is something that some people may perceive to be necessary in order to

consider oneself clever. It has been demonstrated that learning machines have the potential to be

beneficial, and if the Turing test were to be passed by computers of this sort, and then it would

be sufficient evidence for the scientific community. In the event that computers are capable of

learning the game on their own and making an effort to achieve their goals, then who can argue

that they are not thinking? Even if there are a lot of people who disagree with the Turing test on

human intelligence, there is a lot of evidence to show that computers are capable of thinking, and

as a result, it would provide an answer to the question that was asked in the beginning: "Can

machines think?"
 Surname6

Works Cited

Mario, Günther. "Could a machine think? Alan M. Turing vs. John R. Searle."

Turing, Alan M. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence." Creative Computing 6.1 (1980): 44-

53.