Skip to main content

Use your ideas about factors that affect thinking, decision making, and memory to draw conclusions about cognition and what it means to be a...

What it means to be a person is an issue that has been made substantially more complicated over the past century by the rise of artificial intelligence. One way to start thinking about it is via the "Turing Test". Imagine that you are communicating with an avatar in a computer chat room or on a social media site. You cannot see whether the avatar is being controlled by a human or a computer. How could you tell whether you were chatting with person or machine? Would a machine that could pass as human to most interlocutors in this situation be considered human? What the Turing test and recent studies on animal intelligence make us reconsider is whether we should consider "humanity" a matter of our physical or biological nature or something having to do with our abilities to think and feel. 


When we think about decision making, we general consider factors grounded in three mental characteristics, emotions, reason, and memory. All three of these are parts of how we define humanity. What makes us somewhat uncomfortable with considering a machine that passes a Turing test human is precisely our doubts concerning the ability of machines to experience emotion. Memory is a more complex challenge. The borderline cases might be a baby (or fetus) with few or no memories or an elderly person with dementia. In both cases, we have obviously biological humanity. In the case of the very young, we have a future memory-forming potential and in the case of someone with advanced dementia, a past capability. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more