Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Pass a Turing Test

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I advocate a theory of “syntactic semantics” as a way of understanding how computers can think (and how the Chinese-Room-Argument objection to the Turing Test can be overcome): (1) Semantics, considered as the study of relations between symbols and meanings, can be turned into syntax – a study of relations among symbols (including meanings) – and hence syntax (i.e., symbol manipulation) can suffice for the semantical enterprise (contra Searle). (2) Semantics, considered as the process of understanding one domain (by modeling it) in terms of another, can be viewed recursively: The base case of semantic understanding –understanding a domain in terms of itself – is “syntactic understanding.” (3) An internal (or “narrow”), first-person point of view makes an external (or “wide”), third-person point of view otiose for purposes of understanding cognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson, R.P., 1968, “Simulation of social behavior,” pp. 274–356 in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 2nd edn., G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, D., 1989, “Penguins,” The New Yorker, 10 July, 38–67.

  • Associated Press, 1997, “Opponent bytes at offer for draw with Kasparov,” Buffalo News, 7 May, A7.

  • Baum, L.F., 1900, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, New York: Dover (1966 reprint).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, J. and Bruckman, A., 1999, “The Turing game,” http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/turing/ Bunn, J.H., forthcoming, ‘Universal grammar or common syntax? A critical study of Jackendoff’ Patterns in the Mind,” Minds and Machines.

  • Carnap, R., 1928, The Logical Structure of the World, R.A. George (trans.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • Colby, K.M., Hilf, F.D., Weber, S., and Kraemer, H.C., 1972, “Turing-like indistinguishability tests for the validation of a computer simulation of paranoid processes,” Artificial Intelligence 3, 199–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A.R., 1989, “Time-locked multiregional retroactivation,” Cognition 33, 25–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D.C., 1971, “Intentional systems,” Journal of Philosophy 68, 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, K. and Rapaport, W.J., 1997, “A computational theory of vocabulary expansion,” pp. 205–210 in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, C. and Brzezinski, J., 1998, “Autonomous agents as synthetic characters,” AI Magazine 19, 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erion, G.J., 2000, “Common sense: An investigation in ontology, epistemology, and moral philosophy,” Ph.D. Diss., Philosophy Department, SUNY Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetzer, J.H., 1994, “Mental algorithms: Are minds computational systems?,” Pragmatics and Cognition 2, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A., 1980, “Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology,” Behavioral and Brain Science 3, 63–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, K., 1999, “Guessing who is online,” The New York Times, July 22.

  • Harnad, S., 2000, “Minds, machines and Turing: The indistinguishability of indistinguishables,” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 9, this issue.

  • Haugeland, J., 1985, Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea, Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R.K., 1994, “Issues of semantics in a semantic-network representation of belief,” Tech. Rep. 94–11, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Computer Science Department.

  • Hill, R.K., 1995, “Non-well-founded set theory and the circular semantics of semantic networks,” pp. 375–386 in Intelligent Systems: 3rd Golden West International Conference, E.A. Yfantis, ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E., 1995a, Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E., 1995b, “How a cockpit remembers its speeds,” Cognitive Science 19, 265–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R., forthcoming, “Bringing Patterns into focus: A response to Bunn,” Minds and Machines.

  • Johnson, G., 1997, “Ghost in the chess machine: Brain or box? Think about it,” The New York Times, 9 May, A1, B4.

  • Julesz, B., 1971, Foundations of Cyclopean Perception, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J.H., 2000, Speech and Language Processing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, J., 1997, “Propositional logic of supposition and assertion,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38, 325–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassègue, J., 1996, ‘What kind of Turing test did Turing have in mind?,’ Tekhnema: Journal of Philosophy and Technology 3, http://www.gold.ac.uk/tekhnema/3/lassegue/read01.html

  • Levy, S., 1997, “Man v. machine,” Newsweek, 5 May, 51–56.

  • Loebner, H.G., 1994, “In response [to Shieber 1994a],” CACM 37(6), 79–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maida, A.S. and Shapiro, S.C., 1982, “Intensional concepts in propositional semantic networks,” Cognitive Science 6, 291–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J.C., 1987, “The right stuff,” Synthese 70, 349–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, Yu.I., 1977, A Course in Mathematical Logic, New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGilvray, J., 1998, “Meanings are syntactically individuated and found in the head,” Mind and Language 13, 225–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C., 1938, Foundations of the Theory of Signs, Chicago, IL: Unversity of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Percy, W., 1975, The Message in the Bottle, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quillian, M.R., 1967, “Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities,” Behavioral Science 12, 410–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W.V.O., 1951, “Two dogmas of empiricism,” reprinted in From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edn., Rev., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980, pp. 20–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1978, “Meinongian theories and a Russellian paradox,” Noûs 12, 153–180; errata, 1979, Noûs 13, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1981, “How to make the world fit our language: An essay in Meinongian semantics,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 14, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1985, “Machine understanding and data abstraction in Searle' Chinese Room,” pp. 341–345 in Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1986a, “Philosophy, artificial intelligence, and the Chinese-Room Argument,” Abacus 3, Summer, 6–17; correspondence, 1987, Abacus 4, Winter, 6–7, Abacus 4, Spring, 5–7.

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1986b, “Searle' experiments with thought,” Philosophy of Science 53, 271–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1988a, “To think or not to think,” Noûs 22, 585–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1988b, “Syntactic semantics: Foundations of computational natural-language understanding,” pp. 81–131 in Aspects of Artificial Intelligence, J.H. Fetzer, ed., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1995, “Understanding understanding: Syntactic semantics and computational cognition,” pp. 49–88 in AI, Connectionism, and Philosophical Psychology, J.E. Tomberlin, ed., Phil. Perspectives, Vol. 9, Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport,W.J., 1996, Understanding Understanding: Semantics, Computation, and Cognition, Tech. Rep. 96–26, Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Computer Science Department; http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/tech-reports/96–26.ps.Z

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1998, “How minds can be computational systems,” Journal of Experimental, Theoretical and Artificial Intelligence 10, 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W.J., 1999, “Implementation is semantic interpretation,” The Monist 82, 109–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport,W.J. and Ehrlich, K., 2000, “A computational theory of vocabulary acquisition,” in Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Representation, ?. Iwa´nska and S.C. Shapiro, eds., Menlo Park, CA/Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonberg, H.C., 1989, “Kasparov beats chess computer (for now),” New York Times, 23 October, A1, B2.

  • Searle, J.R., 1980, “Minds, brains, and programs,” Behavioral and Brain Science 3, 417–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J.R., 1982, “The myth of the computer,” New York Review of Books, 29 April, 3–6; cf. correspondence, same journal, 24 June 1982, 56–57.

  • Shapiro, S.C., 1979, “The SNePS semantic network processing system,” pp. 179–203 in Associative Networks, N. Findler, ed., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S.C., 1995, “Computationalism,” Minds and Machines 5, 517–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • shapiro/Papers/whatiscs.pdf

  • Shapiro, S.C., 1998, “Embodied Cassie,” pp. 136–143 in Cognitive Robotics: Papers from the 1998 AAAI Fall Symposium, Tech. Rep. FS–98–02, Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1987, “SNePS considered as a fully intensional propositional semantic network,” pp. 262–315 in The Knowledge Frontier, N. Cercone and G. McCalla, eds., New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1991, “Models and minds: Knowledge representation for naturallanguage competence,” pp. 215–259 in Philosophy and AI, R. Cummins and J. Pollock, eds., Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1992, “The SNePS family,” Computers and Mathematics with Applications 23, 243–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., 1995, “An introduction to a computational reader of narrative,” pp. 79–105 in Deixis in Narrative, J.F. Duchan, G.A. Bruder, and L.E. Hewitt, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S.M., 1994a, “Lessons from a restricted Turing test,” CACM 37(6), 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S.M., 1994b, “On Loebner' lessons,” CACM 37, 83–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. and Newell, A., 1958, “Heuristic problem solving: The next advance in operations research,” Operations Research 6(6), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J.A. and Weiner, E.S.C. (preparers), 1989, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn., Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B.C., 1987, “The correspondence continuum,” Report CSLI–87–71, Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srihari, R.K., 1991, “PICTION: A system that uses captions to label human faces in newspaper photographs,” pp. 80–85 in Proceedings of the 9th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srihari, R.K. and Rapaport, W.J., 1989, “Extracting visual information from text: Using captions to label human faces in newspaper photographs,” pp. 364–371 in Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stork, D.G., 1997, HAL' Legacy, Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P., 1986, “Parallel computation and the mind-body problem,” Cognitive Science 10, 301–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A.M., 1936, “On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem” reprinted, with corrections, 1965 in The Undecidable, M. Davis, ed., New York: Raven, pp. 116–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A.M., 1950, “Computing machinery and intelligence,” Mind 59, 433–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartofsky, M.W., 1966, “The model muddle,” pp. 1–11 in Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding, Dordrecht: Reidel (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizenbaum, J., 1966, “ELIZA-A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine,” CACM 9, 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B., 1998, “The end of explanation?,” The New York Review of Books 45, 40–44 (19 November).

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, W.A., 1975, “What' in a link,” pp. 35–82 in Representation and Understanding, D.G. Bobrow and A.M. Collins, eds., New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Department of Philosophy, and Center for Cognitive Science, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14260-2000, U.S.A.

    William J. Rapaport

Authors
  1. William J. Rapaport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rapaport, W.J. How to Pass a Turing Test. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9, 467–490 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008319409770

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008319409770

Search

Navigation