The Turing Test is a poor indication of determining the validity of a human.

Philosopher Searle, has another argument by which he places an english speaking individual in a room, with a bunch of chinese symbols and the appropriate set of rules to pass the Turing test.

This proves that the test is nothing more than an indication of syntax – or the mere wording, and it doesn’t capture the semantics.

Also, Turing has a very weak argument for his test, as it merely goes on generalisations!

Turing suggests that the only way to test if a machine can think, is to be the machine and to feel oneself thinking, similar to that of, the only way to test that another man thinks is to be that man.


However the question is raised of, how do we know that humans think, as they could merely be figments of our imagination, or zombies imitating the behaviour of a thinking being.


But behaviour attributing, thought is the highest explanatory power for behaviour.


If you don’t accept this, you are forced into solipsism

In essence, the knowledge that other other humans can think is really based on an inference to the best explanation of all complex behaviour that we see others exhibit.