Sam Ghandchiسام قندچي Does 'Turing Test' Work Better if 'Attention' is at Center of Mind Model
Sam Ghandchi
http://www.ghandchi.com/4277-turing-test-attention-english.htm

آیا «آزمایش تورینگ» با قرار دادن «توجه» در کانون مدل ذهن بهتر کار می کند

http://www.ghandchi.com/4277-turing-test-attention.htm

Related Articles: 1     2     3     4     5

 

turing-test-attention

 

Thirty years ago, I wrote the original version of my paper entitled 'Turing and AI,' where I discussed Turing's paper of 1950 entitled 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence' which introduced the 'Turing Test' that we still discuss after 72 years! Recently I read a 2019 book entitled 'Rethinking Consciousness' by Michael S.A. Graziano, a neuroscientist who basically believes in putting 'attention' at the center of the model he proposes to understand our mind and calls it 'Attention Schema Theory.' Contrary to philosophers like Karl Popper, who wrote the book 'Objective Knowledge,' focusing on natural sciences, Graziano's focus is on results of works of neuroscience and psychology trying to use them in his research to understand our *Subjective* experience. In fact, he wants to use his model of 'Subjective Experience' to build conscious machines, whereas philosophically for someone like Popper, if we work on external reality and create something new like a car, that thing would be a 'World III' entity, in contrast to the external reality untouched by us (World I) and the subjective reality in our mind (World II). For Popper, the World III is the focus of his epistemological thesis when proposing his theory of 'Falsification' as a way to decide about the truth of different scientific theories! For Graziano's Theory of Mind, not only *attention* is the building block of our 'subjective experience,' he wants to use it to build what he calls the 'artificial consciousness.' Maybe Alan Turing's scope of 'Computer Intelligence' in his 1950 paper could have been interpreted to have close proximity to biological intelligence, but since Turing's times, especially after the introduction of neural networks, AI is understood as some new way of having intelligence which may still have some similarity to biological intelligence of DNA and Brain; nonetheless, for intelligence of phenomena like subatomic particles of inanimate objects, using *attention* to understand them seems to be problematic, although we have seen models like monads of Leibniz resembling biology, that were extended to inanimate objects of the natural world! This whole discussion takes me back to what I discussed about Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) in an article entitled 'Kurzweil's Mind-Making, My Blind Thinking, and Euclid's Achievement,' where it was noted that depending on being a visual, auditory, kinesthetic or a cerebral individual, the model we form in our head may be fundamentally different from one to the other!

 

Hoping for a democratic and secular futurist republic in Iran,

 

Sam Ghandchi

IRANSCOPE

http://www.ghandchi.com/index2.html
April 3,
2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Featured Topics
http://featured.ghandchi.com

متون برگزیده سام قندچی

 

 

For a Secular Democratic & Futurist Republican Party in Iran

http://www.ghandchi.com/futuristparty/index.html

SEARCH