Turing, A.I. and ESP- part 2 of (2/2)
Seb Thirlway
seb at thirlway.demon.co.uk
Mon Jan 3 12:33:05 CST 2000
From: jporter <jp4321 at idt.net>
[snip]
>He seems to have believed that E.S.P., however, would still be a
problem.
>Although he does not mention it specifically, I'm assuming it
has to do
>with the need for intentionality- about the simulation of which
he makes no
>claims. The machine, of course, "borrows" intentionality from
the life
>forms involved in its creation and those involved in the test
itself.
>E.S.P. would seem to be a peculiar blend of irrationality and
>intentionality, beyond anything less than conscious life forms,
not just
>with imitatable likes and dislikes, but with needs, including
the need to
>need, which is probably far beyond imitation.
I don't agree about ESP being this - I'd argue that
intentionality, having needs including the need to need, etc, are
merely part of the "baggage" that ESP carries in Turing's article
(cf earlier post). I don't think it needs to carry this baggage.
I'm considering ESP as just "perception which cannot be explained
as arising from the senses or from guesswork" - e.g. being able
to guess consistently which Zener card the unseen observer is
holding up. It's perfectly possible that ESP will be explained
at some point, perhaps using a scientific framework we don't even
have the bases of at the moment. For example, some kind of
radiant energy that intelligent (or perhaps just sentient)
entities produce and can detect. And it's possible that the
explanation of the mechanism would make it possible for this kind
of faculty to be built into a machine - or even, that beyond a
certain point of complexity and intelligence, a machine would
"naturally" get ESP faculties, since it's an inevitable correlate
of intelligence, whatever the hardware. I'm not saying that I
think this is likely, or even that I'm sure ESP is real. I just
mean to make the point that even if this did happen, Turing's
points and yours about how far humans can be considered as
deterministic machines would still stand - the goalposts would
have been moved.
I have no idea whether Turing meant ESP to carry this "baggage"
in the article. It's baggage that could easily be put in by the
reader, though.
for example
>>>This seems like a good question because Turing's assumption
>> seems
>>>very obviously (to me) to be a refuge from the conclusion that
>>>machines may be intelligent/human.
didn't mean to say that this was Turing's motivation for writing
about it (as you say, who knows?) - just that looking to ESP in
relief as a defeat for the "machines could fool humans" is a very
easy reading to make, one I wanted to demolish. cf my other
post, I was arguing not against Turing but a straw man.
>I think, most of the reflexive emotional response vis a vis A.I.
is easy to
>understand, that is: maybe we are in fact just sophisticated
machines, with
>as yet, unknown elements of design, which eventually through our
science
>and technology, will be figured out, and even duplicated. The
concept of
>E.S.P., though, is not just a stand in for the spiritual, and
the reflexive
>emotional response it often generates among usually rational
people is of a
>different sort.
>
>The concept of the paranormal, because of its surreptitious and
concealed
>nature, is upsetting to our notions of order- especially social
order, and
>the various hierarchies of priviledge that are so maintained. It
is not
>easily controlled. Even those who covet its "power" would seem
to have a
>difficult time making use of it in a dependable way. At times,
it seems
>more of a "wistful" luddite "pipe dream"- you can see where I'm
heading...
>
yep - hadn't thought of that aspect of ESP. Though there's
enough food for thought in that vein in GR... (yet ANOTHER reason
to read it again?)
>But with Turing it was different. When I came upon his article,
I was
>expecting a straight up exposition on the theoretical
underpinnings of A.I.
>The article, albeit esoteric, is supposed to be a classic, of as
much
>historical importance amongst the artificial
intelligence/cognitive science
>people, as C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures" lecture is for those
interested in
>modern cultural studies. Turing's description of E.S.P., as a
major
>stumbling block for computers attempting to pass his famous
test, caught me
>flat-footed. It has to be taken seriously, especially given the
careful
>context in which it is found. It is not enough to dismiss it as
whimsy, or
>some Sokol-like poke in the eye of naive believers. It should be
incumbent
>on those who make such claims, given the stature of the author
and no
>evidence of intent offered by Turing, to not just speculate that
he was
>"kidding" or being "sarcastic," but to provide an explanation of
why he
>would interpose such an inappropriate section in an otherwise
classic
>paper.
Yes, the section is weird, and doesn't fit in with the rest of
the paper. My explanation serves the purpose of trying to
explaining the weirdness away. I can't say anything on the
subject of what else Turing thought about ESP.
Such speculation, even made by "authorities" would seem to serve
>mainly the prejudices of those who offer it, and not to
elucidate anything
>Turing may have actually intended. Whether E.S.P. exists or not
is hardly
>the only point here.
I'd love to know what Turing intended...the ESP section is very
brief, and seems to point to a whole lot of ideas Turing had
about ESP that are not made explicit. Very GR!
regards
seb
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list