Order:
See also
John Mark Bishop
Goldsmiths College, University of London
  1. Quantum Linguistics and Searle's Chinese Room Argument.J. M. Bishop, S. J. Nasuto & B. Coecke - 2011 - In V. C. Muller (ed.), Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 17-29.
    Viewed in the light of the remarkable performance of ‘Watson’ - IBMs proprietary artificial intelligence computer system capable of answering questions posed in natural language - on the US general knowledge quiz show ‘Jeopardy’, we review two experiments on formal systems - one in the domain of quantum physics, the other involving a pictographic languaging game - whereby behaviour seemingly characteristic of domain understanding is generated by the mere mechanical application of simple rules. By re-examining both experiments in the context (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. HeX and the Single Anthill: Playing Games with Aunt Hillary.J. M. Bishop, S. J. Nasuto, T. Tanay, E. B. Roesch & M. C. Spencer - 2015 - In Vincent Müller (ed.), Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Springer. pp. 367-389.
    In a reflective and richly entertaining piece from 1979, Doug Hofstadter playfully imagined a conversation between ‘Achilles’ and an anthill (the eponymous ‘Aunt Hillary’), in which he famously explored many ideas and themes related to cognition and consciousness. For Hofstadter, the anthill is able to carry on a conversation because the ants that compose it play roughly the same role that neurons play in human languaging; unfortunately, Hofstadter’s work is notably short on detail suggesting how this magic might be achieved1. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  70
    Of (Zombie) Mice and Animats.S. J. Nasuto & J. M. Bishop - 2013 - In Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence. pp. 85-107.
    The Chinese Room Argument purports to show that‘ syntax is not sufficient for semantics’; an argument which led John Searle to conclude that ‘programs are not minds’ and hence that no computational device can ever exhibit true understanding. Yet, although this controversial argument has received a series of criticisms, it has withstood all attempts at decisive rebuttal so far. One of the classical responses to CRA has been based on equipping a purely computational device with a physical robot body. This (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation