Justin Wong

Phil 244
10/31/2012

I. Introduction
Since the development of electric computers, the possibility of intelligent computers has
occupied a special place in our imaginations. As artificial intelligence has become ingrained
in popular culture however, so have misconceptions about it. In this paper, I will try to
dispel some of those misconceptions, particularly about the Turing test as a benchmark for
artificial intelligence and the idea that computer programs can develop sentience. In order
to illuminate the flaws of the Turing test, I will also explain the word intentionality, a
concept that, as it turns out, is not only closely intertwined with the concept of intelligence,
but also is required to possess intelligence.

II. The Turing Test

The Turing Test is a method to determine and define computer intelligence devised by
the computer scientist Alan Turing. It goes something like this: Suppose there are three
players of a game-a man, a woman, and an interrogator. The object of the game is for the
interrogator to determine which is the man and which is the woman, merely by posing
questions to them. However, one happens to be a computer and the other is a human. The
computer will try to trick the interrogator into making the wrong choice, while the human
will try to help the interrogator make the right choice. For example, if the human in the
game is a woman, the computer will try to trick the interrogator into thinking that it is the
woman, overriding the objections of the real woman. The question then is, will the
computer perform as well at this game as when a real man and woman play the game? If so,

then according to Turing, the computer is intelligent. In this way, the Turing test reduces
the word intelligence to how well a computer can perform at this game. Turing is then not
looking for an intrinsic definition of intelligence, but rather, at how intelligence behaves or
manifests itself. As a result, Turing is often called a behaviorist, since for him; intelligence
and all such mental qualities are nothing but behavioral dispositions that can be observed
externally. From his test, Turing further argues that it is logically possible to create a
computer that has sufficient memory, power, and the appropriately implemented program
to pass the Turing Test, and therefore, it is possible to have intelligent computers. I will
argue that the Turing test is an invalid way to determine computer intelligence, and
therefore, that machine intelligence cannot be achieved under the parameters set forth by
Turing, that is, merely by implementing a program in a sufficiently powerful computer to
pass the Turing Test.

II. Chinese Room

Most of the criticisms leveled against the Turing Test revolve around his neglecting the
importance of understanding in intelligence. To see what this means, a good formulation of
this argument comes from John Searle, in his Chinese Room thought experiment. Searle
asks us to imagine ourselves locked in a room, with our job being to provide appropriate
responses in Chinese to messages written in Chinese that are slipped under our door
(input), despite not knowing the language. In our room, we have pencil and paper with
which to write our responses, and since we dont know Chinese, a rubric that tells us how
to correlate particular input Chinese symbols to corresponding output Chinese symbols.
In this way, we can build sentences and coherent responses to the input messages. This is
case one. In case two, the messages under our door are written in English, and naturally

enough, we respond in English. The contrast between case one and case two illuminates the
flaw in Turings behaviorism. In both cases, the outputs I slip back out of the room are
coherent and respond appropriately to the messages given to me. However, in case two, I
actually possess understanding of the language involved, whereas in case one, I am only
manipulating symbols with the help of a rubric, since I have no real understanding of
Chinese at all. Even though in both cases, the systems are behaviorally similar, in that they
both give appropriate responses, in case one, there is no understanding of the inputs or the
responses, but only a manipulation of symbols. Therein lies the flaw of the Turing Test. It
fails to identify understanding in the machine since it is only a behavioral test, and if a
machine lacks understanding and is only a complex symbol manipulator, I would hesitate
to call it intelligent. A machine may pass the Turing Test, and it could just be taking in input
questions, putting them through some algorithm, and coming up with responses, without
actual understanding of the questions and responses.

III. Intentionality
Closely tied to, and a requirement for understanding is intentionality. Intentionality is the
ability for humans to have thoughts about things. Computers, on the other hand, as symbol
manipulators whose operations take place without reference to the outside world beyond
what humans tell them to do, do not possess intentionality. Their processes only concern
the symbols themselves, not what occurs outside of them. This tool of intentionality can be
used to refute Turings anticipation of future arguments against him. One of the objections
that Turing addresses concerns computers and their lack of consciousness; where a
detractor argues that a computer will never, for example, understand or appreciate a
sonnet. Turing gives an example of a computer that responds very well to an oral test about

the sonnet, and challenges his detractor to deny that it is conscious. However, his
detractors are right. The computer could have been programmed with facts about sonnets,
and upon the reception of the right question, it could have merely scanned its memory for
facts matching keywords in the question, without having any intentionality or awareness
that it is even dealing with a sonnet at all. In fact, all the intentionality lies with the original
programmer, and the computer only possesses derived intentionality, as Searle would call
it. An example of derived intentionality would be words on a page. The words derive all
their intentionality from their author and are therefore unintelligent, and likewise, the
computer derives all its intentionality, what it deals with, what its goals are, from the
original programmer, and is also unintelligent. To extend the Chinese room metaphor, the
Chinese room system has no intentionality regarding the Chinese symbols since it is just
manipulating them without regard to their meanings. Whoever created the translation
rubric that is used by the man inside the Chinese room (in other words, a programmer),
however, possesses intentionality, since he understands Chinese. The Chinese room system
can replicate his original intentionality, but it is merely a derivative, since it itself cannot
understand Chinese. This concept of derivative intentionality can also strike down Turings
objection that computers can be programmed to learn, and should therefore be considered
intelligent. Yes, computers can be programmed to learn. However, their ability to learn is
derived from our programming capabilities. They did not, of their own accord, become goal
oriented, intentional beings, and they therefore only possess derived intentionality, and
since there is no intelligence without intentionality, they are unintelligent.

IV. Conclusion
The Turing Test cannot differentiate between true understanding and symbol
manipulation. Intentionality is required for understanding, and intelligence is required for
intentionality to occur. Therefore, the Turing Test is an invalid test for intelligence.