COGNITIVE SYSTEMS AND INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGIES“At the terminal of the century the usage of words and general educated sentiment will hold altered so much that one will be able to talk of machines believing without anticipating to be contradicted.” ( Turing, 1950, p. 442 ) .The Imitation Game, proposed by Alan Turing in his essay “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” , published in the diary “Mind” ( 1950 ) , is a method of measuring if machines are intelligent. Based on the Imitation Game, many fluctuations have appeared under the name of “The Turing Test” , all of them measuring the ability of a computing machine to act intelligently. The trial is made up of a human ( normally called “judge” ) who communicates with an entity via any methods ( sooner instant messaging ) that prevent the justice from seeing and hearing the middleman, and after a five minute conversation he must give a finding of fact: if the “chat-partner” is besides human or is a machine.

This “trial” is repeated with several different Judgess, and if it is concluded that in at least 30 per centum of the instances the “chat-partner” is human, so it passes the Turing Test. In June 2014, the first super-computer passed the trial. But still, has the reply to the inquiry “Can machines believe? ” been found? Or merely the reply to the inquiry “Can computing machines act in a manner that they can go through the Turing Test? ” ? Is the Turing Test conclusive in finding whether a computing machine can believe or non? What should be done in the hereafter and what has been done until now in footings of scientific research and development in order to go through the trial? Why did old machines fail at the trial and what is it to larn from “past mistakes” ?At a first glimpse, the Turing Test is merely an index of how a computing machine can attest verbal behaviour.

As Block ( 1981 ) says, the trial is merely mensurating how the computing machine produces “a reasonable sequence of verbal responses to a sequence of verbal stimuli” . But is this sufficient for a machine to be considered intelligent? Or is it equal? Block suggests that, if a machine could be created with a large database of conversations up to an hr length which include replies for any possible inquiry that can be asked by the justice, the computing machine would go through the trial. This was named by Block the “Aunt Bertha machine” , whose database grows exponentially in size as the conversation gets longer.

This means that the computing machine is non intelligent by itself, because the lone thing that it does is to seek in its database for the inquiries that the justice asks and take from possible replies. This sort of machine is non far from being realized with the current engineering, and implies natural linguistic communication processing and statistical illations. From this, the decision would be that a machine can go through the Turing trial if it is able to “fool” a justice in believing it has cognitive accomplishments ( Block, 1995 ) . For illustration, a set of fast ones may be used in order to make this. Previous theoretical accounts of machines used such fast ones by claiming to hold a eldritch personality.

The first theoretical account ( Weizebaum, 1976 ) which managed to flim-flam people in believing it is a homo was Joseph Weizenbaum’s ELIZA, a plan which simulated the personality of a Rogerian Psycho-therapist, and it fooled people by utilizing techniques that are non cognitive, such as acknowledging the pronouns “I” and “you” and trading them and paraphrasing the judge’s statements in inquiries in order to incite him to dialogue. But this is merely pattern matching, and does non necessitate excessively much intelligence from the plan. However, there were reported some instances in which people got attached emotionally to ELIZA ( Weizenbaum, 1976 ) , and some healers suggested that ELIZA-like automatons could in the future replace those in the industry. Another theoretical account which claimed to hold a personality was PARRY ( Colby et al. , 1972 ) .

PARRY gave the feeling that he was a paranoiac, and even made it hard from clinical psychologists to separate from him and existent paranoiacs. But, this plans have no opportunity to go through the Turing Test, even though it can be appreciated that they have the ability of miming the conversation manner of a certain type of human being.However, the first theoretical account which has of all time officially passed the Turing Test was a plan called “Eugene Goostman” in June 2014 ( Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence, 2014 ) . This plan used similar techniques as ELIZA and PARRY in order to gull the Judgess, “disguising” itself in the personality of a 13 old ages old male child from Ukraine, who spoke English as a 2nd linguistic communication.

It managed to convert more than 30 per centum of the middlemans that he was a human due to its infantile gaiety and replies. It can besides talk in a humoristic mode, as it can be seen in Deb Amine’s article “Our interview with Turing Test victor Eugene Goostman” ( Deb Amine, 2014 ) . Still, people believe that Eugene does non attest intelligent behaviour, merely the capacity of misrepresentation.As far from now, even though the Turing Test was passed, all the machines created were missing many required constructs in order to be considered intelligent, such as consciousness, creativeness, originality etc.

In this regard, the most of import expostulations from Turing’s essay “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” should be analyzed.“The Mathematical Objection” is the consequence of a aggregation of mathematical logic experiments which concludes that the computing machines have a limited possibility of development. But, as Stephen Hawking and his equals say in an interview for Christian Post ( 2014 ) : “there is no physical jurisprudence preventing atoms from being organized in ways that perform even more advanced calculations than the agreements of atoms in human brains” .

Basically, the lone bounds of Artificial intelligence are, harmonizing to Alexandru Tugui ( “Reflections on the Limits of the Artificial Intelligence” , Ubiquity, 2004 ) , due to the Law of Entropy, to the fact that AI is based on information sciences processs and that anything in computing machine scientific discipline can merely be decomposed in “0” and “1” , while biological systems “accept intermediary values” . He besides suggests that AI is limited by the usage of symbolic logic as its basis, therefore being unsuccessful in the usage of affectional logic.“The Argument from Consciousness” is one of the most of import expostulations, showing the belief that in order to hold a head, machines should be witting and reasoning that computational systems will ne’er double certain human abilities. During the past 50 old ages, there have been many arguments over the possibility of computational consciousness, chiefly showing disbelieving sentiments. Besides, as for the researches done until now, it is hard even to specify what consciousness is. But, the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin proposed in 2008 ( inThe Biological Bulletin) a manner of understanding consciousness, in his work called the “Integrated Information Theory” . This theory states that if complex systems have a cause-effect construction, one of their belongingss is being consciousness. The encephalon is such a cause-effect construction, and if a computing machine could be built in an equal construction, it can go witting.

As Cristof Koch stated in an article for MIT Technology reappraisal ( Antonio Regalado, 2014 ) , if “you were to construct the computing machine in an appropriate manner, like a neuromorphic computing machine, it could be conscious.” . This links us to the “Argument from Continuity in the Nervous System” , besides presented in Turing’s work, proposing that the behaviour of the nervous system can non be mimicked by a machine.Neuromorphic computer science is fundamentally the usage of neuromorphic french friess in order to animate the architecture of the nervous system. Calculation and memory are transferred between a really big figure of nerve cells which are extremely interconnected through synapses. It is a hardware and package mix that implements theoretical accounts of nervous webs, and its advantage is that it can understand how the morphology of nerve cells and their system can be computed in order to accommodate to alterations, evolve, be able to larn and be immune to damage, as described by Don Monroe in his publication “Neuromorphic calculating gets ready for the ( truly ) large time” ( 2014 ) .

Such french friess have been designed in the on-going ambitious undertakings called “SyNAPSE” and “The Human Brain Project” . The first 1 is developed by IBM Cognitive Computing section and its intent is to make an architecture that can mime “the map, low power, little size in existent clip of the human brain” . As of 2012, the undertaking reached the public presentation of making french friess that have the capacities of a worm’s encephalon, but it is estimated that in a decennary or two it would hold the capacities of the human encephalon ( Dharmendra Modha, 2012 ) . The 2nd one, coordinated by Heildelberg and Manchester Universities, is constructing a platform of neuromorphic computer science, ab initio having 4 million nerve cells and a billion synapses, back uping nervous webs at the graduated table of an insect’s encephalon, but in the hereafter will be able to have 100s of 1000000s of nerve cells. ( as of “The Human Brain Project SP9: Neuromorphic Computing Platform, 2013,Youtube) .Therefore, sing the statements presented above, neuromorphic calculating seems to be the key to work outing the jobs of consciousness and continuity in the nervous system, one time farther research is finished. It could besides be a solution for “The statements for assorted disabilities” and “Lady Lovelace’s objection” , foremost one stating that a computing machine could non hold sense of wit and be originative, and the 2nd 1 that it can non be original.

As for extra-sensory perceptual experience, we do non hold that much grounds of viability. However, when talking approximately telepathy, we have the BCI – brain-computer interface, which is a manner of direct communicating between the human encephalon and a machine. An article from skyNEWS ( Carole Erskine, Sky News Online, 2010 ) leads us to “A computing machine programme that can observe what a individual is thinking” , which has been developed by the Welcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at University College London.

The survey was led by Professor Eleanor Maguire. It implied voluntaries who had to memorise sequences from three short movies, so mentally remember the movies while their encephalon activity and blood flow were monitored by a Magnetic Resonance Imaging scanner ( MRI ) . The computing machine was able to place which films were the voluntaries remembering.

This may be a great measure in the field of brain-computer interface, nevertheless, it is merely an emerging engineering, and being able to acknowledge every thought, thought, memory that can come up into a person’s head immediately in a 5-minute conversation looks rather similar science-fiction. Besides, in the Turing Test, the justice must be connected to a MRI scanner, this being an assistance for the computing machine.A more recent expostulation for Alan Turing’s proposal is the Chinese Room statement, coined by John Searle ( Searle, 1980 ) , who suggests that computing machines are unable to understand inputs and end products, they merely do what the plans told them to make, and that the intelligence that they prove is bogus. So, the visual aspect of really strong unreal intelligence is merely the consequence of extremely adept programming techniques, computing machines merely following complex instructions, non concluding. In decision, it is an statement against the possibility of existent unreal intelligence.

However, I believe that it is really hard to contend this statement, but I consider that it is possible for a computing machine, after being “blessed” by worlds with some strong scheduling, to develop a machine-like manner of logical thinking, even though it does non work like the human type.After covering the chief expostulations of the Turing Test, it seems that some of them have been surpassed by the technological development or will be in the hereafter. But still some people argue that the Turing Test is unequal for mensurating computing machine intelligence, suggesting other options.One of them is Steven Harnad, who proposed the Entire Turing Test, which tests computing machines on their reactions non merely to verbal stimulation, but to all sensory inputs that a human can supply, this significance that the machine should hold sensorimotor capacities ( Harnad 1989, 1991 ) . But IBM has a research plan called “Smarter Planet – 5 in 5” , which is foretelling that in five old ages computing machines will be able to see, smell, gustatory sensation, touch and hear, so this will fit future machines with the abilities to go through the Entire Turing Test. ( Cognitive Computer science: 5 Future Technology Innovations from IBM,Youtube, 2012 ) .Another trial is the Truly Total Turing Test, proposed by Paul Schweizer ( 1998 ) , believing that machines should hold experienced an development similar to the human one ( Ex.

From Australopithecus to Homo Sapiens Sapiens ) . Schweizer says that merely after go throughing the Truly Total Turing Test, the topic should sit for the Total Turing Test or the Turing Test. But, as in engineering new theoretical accounts of computing machines, package, and algorithms appear daily, it will be possible for this type of trial to be passed.Other trials may include the Inverted Turing Tests ( Stuart Watt, 1996 ) , the Kugel Test ( Kugel 1986, 1990 ) and the Total Total Turing Test ( besides by Harnad, 1998 ) , but these trials ask excessively much from the machines.In decision, I believe that go throughing the Turing Test is no longer a job, and surely in the hereafter there will be computing machines that could “fool” the Judgess in 100 per centum of the instances, in the 5-minute conversations, due to the exponential development of engineering. However, I agree that the Turing Test assesses merely the capacity of a machine to response to verbal stimulation, this non being adequate to turn out that it can believe. But I find the Entire Turing Test, by being more hard to go through and by necessitating more from computing machines, is a much better step of computational intelligence.

After making research and determination that computing machines have their restrictions in development beyond the point that worlds can command, that computing machines can accomplish consciousness, sense of wit, and can be an unreal function of a nervous system, I genuinely believe that the reply “Yes” to the inquiry “Can machines believe? ” is non that far as it seems, yet Turing Test being a necessary but non a sufficient status.Mentions

1. Turing. A.M. ( 1950 ) , Calculating Machinery and Intelligence.Mind 49( 256 ) , pp. 433-460
2. Block, N. ( 1981 ) , Psychologism and Behaviorism.

   Philosophic Review (90 ) , pp. 5–43.

3. Block, N. ( 1995 ) , The Mind as the Software of the Brain, In D.

   Osherson, L. Gleitman, S. Kosslyn, E. Smith and S.

   Sternberg, eds. ,An Invitation to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA. : MIT Press.

4. Weizenbaum, J.

   ( 1976 ) ,Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation, San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.

5. Colby, K.M. Hilf, F.D.

   , Weber, S. and Kraemer, ( 1972 ) , Turing-like Indistinguishability Tests for the Validation of a Computer Simulation of Paranoid Processes,Artificial Intelligence3, pp. 199–222.

6. Amine, D. , ( 2014 ) , Our interview with Turing Test victor Eugene Goostman. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.yahoo.com/tech/our-interview-with-turing-test-winner-eugene-goostman-88482732919.

   html [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

7. Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence ( 2014 ) , Chatbot ‘Eugene Goostman’ passes the Turing Test, Warwick claims. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.kurzweilai.net/chatbot-eugene-goostman-passes-turing-test-warwick-claims [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]
8. Blair, L. ( 2014 ) , Stephen Hawking Warns Artificial Intelligence Could be ‘Worst Mistake in History ‘ as Johnny Depp ‘s ‘Transcendence ‘ Examines It. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.

   christianpost.com/news/stephen-hawking-warns-artificial-intelligence-could-be-worst-mistake-in-history-as-johnny-depps-transcendence-examines-it-119131/ [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

9. Tugui, A. , ( 2004 ) , Reflections on the Limits of Artificial Intelligence.

   Ubiquity, Volume 2004 Issue December. Besides online at: hypertext transfer protocol: //ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm? id=1041064 [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

10. Tononi, G. , ( 2008 ) . Consciousness as incorporate information: a probationary pronunciamento.The Biological Bulletin215 ( 3 ) : 216–242
11. Regalado, A.

    , ( 2014 ) , What It Will Take for Computers to Be Conscious. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.technologyreview.com/news/531146/what-it-will-take-for-computers-to-be-conscious/ [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

12. Monroe, D.

    , ( 2014 ) , Neuromorphic calculating gets ready for the ( truly ) large clip.Communicationss of the ACM,Volume 57 Issue 6, pp. 13-15. Besides available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/6/175183-neuromorphic-computing-gets-ready-for-the-really-big-time/fulltext [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

13. Modha, D. ( 2012 ) , Cognitive Computer science: The SyNAPSE Project.Youtube, Published on May 30, 2012 by channel IBM Research.

    Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.youtube.com/watch? v=gQ3HEVelBFY [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

14. HumanBrainProject, ( 2013 ) , The Human Brain Project SP9: Neuromorphic Calculating Platform.Youtube, Published on Oct 8, 2013 by channel HumanBrainProject. Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.youtube.com/watch? v=6RoiZ90mGfw [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]
15. Erskine, C. , ( 2010 ) , Telepathic Computer Can ‘Read’ Your Mind.

    Available from hypertext transfer protocol: //news.sky.com/story/765640/telepathic-computer-can-read-your-mind [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

16. Searle, J.R. ( 1980 ) , Minds, Brains and Programs,Behavioral and Brain Sciences3, pp.

    417–424.

17. Harnad, S. ( 1991 ) , Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation of an Old Philosophical Problem,Minds and Machines1, pp. 43–54.
18. IBM, ( 2012 ) , Cognitive Computer science: 5 Future Technology Innovations from IBM.

    Youtube, Published on Dec 16, 2012 by channel IBM. Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.youtube.com/watch? v=wXkfrBJqVcQ [ Accessed 12/06/2014 ]

19. Schweizer, P.

    ( 1998 ) , The Truly Total Turing Test,Minds and Machines8, pp. 263–272.

20. Watt, S. ( 1996 ) , Naive Psychology and the Inverted Turing Test,Psycoloquy7 ( 14 ) .
21. Kugel, P. ( 1986 ) , Thinking May Be More Than Computing,Cognition22, pp. 137–198.

22. Kugel, P. ( 1990 ) , Is It Time to Replace Turing’s Test? , 1990 WorkshopArtificial Intelligence: Emerging Science or Diing Art Form. Sponsored by SUNY Binghamton’s Program in Philosophy and Computer and Systems Sciences and AAAI.
23. Harnad, S. ( 1998 ) , Turing Indistinguishability and the Blind Watchmaker, in G.

    Mulhauser, erectile dysfunction.Evolving ConsciousnessDutch capital: John Benjamins.