The question whether or not computers can think was first asked in print by Alan Turing in his seminal 1950 article. In order to avoid defining what a computer is or what thinking is, Turing resorts to “the imitation game” which is a test that allows us to determine whether or not a machine can think. That is, if an interrogator is unable to tell whether responses to his questions come from a human being or from a machine, the machine (...) is imitating a human being so well that it has to be acknowledged that these responses result from its thinking. However, then as now, it is not an indisputable claim that machines could think, and an unceasing stream of papers discussing the validity of the test proves this point. There are many arguments in favour of, as well as against, the claims borne by the test, and Turing himself discusses some of them. In his view, there are mice possible objections to the concept of a thinking machine, which he eventually dismisses as weak, irrelevant, or plain false. However, as he admits, he can present “no very convincing arguments of a positive nature to support my views. If I had I should not have taken such pains to point out the fallacies in contrary views”. (shrink)

Se ha propuesto el uso de heurísticas como una herramienta para solucionar el problema de marco. Los objetivos de este trabajo son proveer una clarificación de la literatura filosófica sobre el tema e intentar resolver los debates pendientes considerando la evidencia empírica disponible. Luego de distinguir varios aspectos del problema de marco, analizaremos las disputas filosóficas sobre el tema. A continuación comentaremos la literatura sobre la evidencia empírica relevante proveniente de la psicología cognitiva. Argumentaremos que las heurísticas pueden ser útiles (...) para solucionar sólo un aspecto del problema de marco, aun con varias restricciones. (shrink)

Turing's celebrated 1950 paper proposes a very general methodological criterion for modelling mental function: total functional equivalence and indistinguishability. His criterion gives rise to a hierarchy of Turing Tests, from subtotal ("toy") fragments of our functions (t1), to total symbolic (pen-pal) function (T2 -- the standard Turing Test), to total external sensorimotor (robotic) function (T3), to total internal microfunction (T4), to total indistinguishability in every empirically discernible respect (T5). This is a "reverse-engineering" hierarchy of (decreasing) empirical underdetermination of the theory (...) by the data. Level t1 is clearly too underdetermined, T2 is vulnerable to a counterexample (Searle's Chinese Room Argument), and T4 and T5 are arbitrarily overdetermined. Hence T3 is the appropriate target level for cognitive science. When it is reached, however, there will still remain more unanswerable questions than when Physics reaches its Grand Unified Theory of Everything (GUTE), because of the mind/body problem and the other-minds problem, both of which are inherent in this empirical domain, even though Turing hardly mentions them. (shrink)

El problema de marco, interpretado como un problema de determinación de la relevancia, ha sido motivo en las décadas de los 80 ́-90 ́ de grandes debates y controversias. La cuestión clave de este trabajo consistirá en dilucidar la relación que entre la dificultad definicional y resolutiva del problema de marco se establece: es necesario aclarar la interpretación particular que del problema de marco se tenga en mente antes de estimar cualquier solución que intente resolverlo. Una manera de abordar esta (...) cuestión es describir algunas de las varias interpretaciones que del problema se han propuesto y analizar luego las dificultades subyacentes. Al igual que Lormand sugerimos que cada una de estas interpretaciones se refiere a un problema distinto y que es necesario atender a las diferencias que entre éstas se establecen antes de estimar cualquier propuesta de resolución. (shrink)

Considering two of the main types of emotions, namely, perceptual emotions and cognitive emotions, in this paper we will examine which of them has a greater explanatory power for solving the frame problem. Additionally, we will analyze which of the main characteristics of perceptual and cognitive emotions type are appropriate when explaining how human beings determine relevance efficiently. We argue, assuming an intermediate position, that both types of emotions offer the necessary tools to explain how human beings solve the frame (...) problem. This is due, on the one hand, to the experiential/corporal character of the perceptual emotions and, on the other hand, to the relationship that cognitive emotions establish with the achievement of goals when facing a determined situation. (shrink)

El problema de marco cuestiona cómo los procesos cognitivos determinan qué información, de entre toda la disponible, es relevante dada una tarea determinada. Aunque postulamos una definición posible, especificar de qué trata este problema es una tarea complicada. Una manera de obtener claridad sobre esta cuestión es explorar distintas interpretaciones del problema de marco, interpretación lógica y filosófica, para dilucidar luego la dificultad en común. Como resultado de nuestro análisis concluimos que, sea la interpretación del problema de marco que se (...) tenga en mente, la dificultad subyacente es la misma: examinar vasta cantidad de información. La dificultad de la vastedad de información, a modo de puente entre ambas interpretaciones, permitiría no solo comprender más claramente de qué trata el problema de marco sino también resolverlo. The frame problem questions how cognitive processes determine what information is relevant, among all available, given a particular task. Although we proposed a possible definition, it is a difficult task to specify what this problem is about. One way to get insight into this matter is to explore different interpretations of the frame problem, a logical interpretation and a philosophical interpretation, to then elucidate the difficulty in common. The conclusion drawn from our analysis is that, irrespective of the interpretation of the frame problem you may have in mind, the underlying difficulty is the same: to examine a vastness of information. The difficulty posed by the vastness of information, taken as a bridge between both interpretations, would not only allow a clearer insight into the frame problem but also to solve it. (shrink)