Some of you may be familiar with a British scientist from the 1940s who revolutionized computer science and helped end World War II early because he and his colleagues were able to decode and translate the German communication device known as "Enigma." There was a movie about him recently with Benedict Cumberbatch called "The Imitation Game." It was amazing and you should see it if you have not yet done so.
Anyway...
The “Turing Test” is a test that demonstrates a computer’s ability to intelligently answer questions as if that computer were a human. The ultimate question that must be answered as a result of the machine’s performance in the test is, “Can machines think?” Of course, it is vital that we must present a clear understanding of the terms “machine” and “think” in order to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. Turing’s solution to this was simple. He used a test method that operates under the title of “imitation game.”
In order to be done properly, the test requires a person, a computer, and a person to function as the interrogator. The test must be set up so the conditions are such that the interrogator can’t see, hear, or touch the participants and can only read the answers that each one presents. This question and answer method seems to provide the most fair chance for the machine to shine. For example, it would be unfair to give the computer physical tasks only possibly performed by a limb-containing organism. However, despite this, the odds remain stacked against the machine. For example, the human can intentionally perform poorly using poor arithmetic or poor grammar. It would be incredibly difficult to assume that the machine “intends.” On the other hand, the machine may be able to be explicitly designed to perform poorly or to most accurately imitate the opposing human.
In addition to the performance of the machine itself, we must also take into account the nature and origin of the machine. As it is most likely possible to build an entire organism out of the cell of a preexisting one, a “machine” created in this manner would most certainly be a “thinking machine.” It would simply be created under unique circumstances. However, most would not be satisfied with comparing a breathing animal to a digital computer. Thus, this would most likely be rendered irrelevant. A computer, we know, would be operating under a system of fixed rules and would not have any ability to deviate from those rules. A good example is a magic eight ball saying “ask again later,” as it is directly programmed to do so and cannot be treated as if making an independent decision. In further clarifying his definitions and requirements of the mechanics of these machines, Turing states that these digital computers typically contain three different components: a store, an executive unit, and control. The store functions precisely as the human memory functions. It is necessary to record and keep track of its calculations. The executive unit carries out all the individual calculations and it is the responsibility of the control to ensure everything is carried out exactly as it should be. In studying each of these functions, it can be observed that the “human computer” functions rather similarly. One last thing to consider is whether or not a random element can be incorporated into the computer to potentially act as a function of free will. Even with this element, Turing wouldn’t classify it as literal free will. It is in performing these functions that the computer may beat its competitor and win the interrogator’s judgement.
Turing himself expresses his personal belief that computers will one day be able to perform the imitation game so well that the average interrogator will not have a 70 percent chance of correctly guessing which of the participants is the machine. It also may be worth noting that he predicted “50 years” for this to occur. Present day exceeds 50 years since Turing made the claim.
One criticism of Turing’s ideas was from the Christian community of England during that time. It wouldn’t be surprising that the traditionalists would have contradictory views to Turing’s philosophy and science. They argued that because God had exclusively granted souls to humans over other animals or “machines”, humans are the only beings that can think. Thinking, therefore, is the product of having a soul, which machines would not. This is known as the theological objection. Turing replies in multiple ways.
First, Turing immediately objects to the religious classifying humans separate from any other “being.” Clearly, a dog is much more related to a human than it is to an inanimate object such as a computer. This is something even the average biologist of the time would have told you. Building upon this, Turing calls into question the subjectivity of the Christian worldview. For example, some Muslims may be certain that women have no souls. What is it that would make this more or less valid when it is exclusively based upon religious judgement?
Getting back to the main concern, Turing adds that the theological objection implies a restriction that God could not grant non-human animals or machines souls if he wished. Logically, he may not be able to make two equal to one. However, it would certainly seem infinitely easier to grant an elephant the ability to think as if it were a human. Regarding machines, it would seem especially likely that God may endow a machine with a “soul” if the machine had equal processing abilities to that of a human. There would then only be one piece of the puzzle left to complete a genuinely thinking thing, and that would be the “soul” that the opposition would love so dearly. Turing concludes with making the final case that our engineering of “soulful,” thinking machines would be functionally no different than procreating to make children. They would be exactly the same concept.
