Turin (Essay Sample)

Your name Instructor’s name School Subject Date Turing Test: Imitation Game In a nutshell, imitation game as captured in Turin Test refers to different variety of explicit behavioral claimed to be logically adequate conditions for the innate presence of intelligence, thought as well as mind in presumed minded entities. Delving into Turin’s argument, the objection could have irreversible impact. The principal approach as presented within the wider aspect of consciousness is that human mind cannot be replaced or substitute with any artificial intelligence. That is why the very existence of consciousness is mysterious and is beyond any scope of materialism which is craftily avoided in Turin’s imitation game. From natural perspective, Turins objection cannot fail since his observation and presentation doesn’t revolve within materialism which lacks substance of any coherent answer. Since human thought have the power to control all human dynamics such as sensations, desires, selves as well as beliefs, the objection pose a serious threat to Turing's position on the prospects for thinking machines (Lyons 111). In essence, thinking is a reserve of and a function of living organisms with the centrality to human’s eternal soul. And since man cannot transfer this capability to his own creation, machines in this case cannot reason. It ought to noted that Turin had inferred that God can as well give machines the power to think, examining the broader concept of intelligence, if a machine can think, it has to be created by the same powers the created man and the rest of the universe. Turin had based his case on the premise developed against Copernican theory concerning the movement of the orbital bodies. The reason why the objection can have a grave effect on Turin premise can be established on the fact that human mind is cannot be argued to be a physical is covered within diverse but unique attributes. For instance, a machine cannot develop or expose what is regarded as qualitative feel or express such human element as pain; on the other a human mind can sustain or uphold intentionality specifically towards a given subject or object, a machine cannot have such rationale unless directed by human intelligence through advanced programming (Lyons 114). The very aspect of consciousness which Turin should have observed is that machines do not have and cant have that innate private as well as immediacy to the situation as is with human mind and intelligence; in addition machines cannot have subjective ontology, while the very nature of human mind cannot be easily be explained using physical language since it doesn’t have such attributes as crucial aspects like location, centrality as well as spatial extension which tend to outline general physical conditions. The objection raised by Turin can be to have failed to diffuse the explosive premise of conscioness, his stance appear to be more propelled by dynamics of materialism which fails to integrate with finite nature of understanding human nature. In his report Turin had talked of machines which were to be characterized purely as requiring definite discipline, he went ahead to assert that this was achievable or more allied to programming of a unique universal machine along with a residue of what he had termed as initiative. In this he contracted his objection since machines could only have or be said to be disciplined if they were said to be thinking; however, they were relying on human intelligence. It is this point that his stance can be said to be in one way or the other lacking in suitability since a machine cannot have aspects which are allied to mental activities and likewise these human aspects cannot be developed through computable algorithms or be equally implemented in any machine. Looking at the scope of the argument, it evident that the objections pose a serious threat to Turing's position on the prospects for thinking machines. The contentious ground illustrates that no given machine can show emotions, depression, feel pleasure, pain, joy or sorrow, yet intelligent man does. What this shows is that machines cannot be as human beings, intelligent. Nevertheless, Turin had the temerity to state that this observation was in itself a radical denial of the test itself, he failed to note that when human shares their innate feelings the act in itself testifies of existence of intelligence. And since human intelligence has contributed immensely in the development of machines, no machine has ever evolved to manage inventing its own process of validation or more its procedure of syntactic processing, this is fundamentally a reserve of human intellect since machines are just but tools developed to aid man in his work. In this regard it would be imperative to posit that machines can only perform what we already know; human mind is the only platform where original concepts are cultured. More so, it has been establishe...