Computer Vs. Consciousness: An Analysis of Alan Turing's Statements

(written June 20, 2019)

Example of a computer making a mistake because it doesn’t have consciousness:

IBM Watson is an artificial intelligence supercomputer which the IBM company had created to win the game of Jeopardy! against humans. Watson is able to answer questions asked in natural language, however, more than often, it makes errors. Here is an example of such an error: “Despite its intellectual prowess, Watson was by no means omniscient. On Tuesday evening during Final Jeopardy, the category was U.S. Cities and the clue was: “Its largest airport is named for a World War II hero; its second largest for a World War II battle.” Watson drew guffaws from many in the television audience when it responded “What is Toronto?????” The string of question marks indicated that the system had very low confidence in its response, I.B.M. researchers said, but because it was Final Jeopardy, it was forced to give a response. The machine did not suffer much damage. It had wagered just $947 on its result. (The correct answer is, "What is Chicago?")” (From an article in the NY Times).

This was just one example of the limitations of a computer, but there are many more. The general limitations are as follows: computers completely rely on humans to program and give input, they have no self-intelligence, no decision making capability, no learning power beyond what it is programmed for, etc. Computers cannot have a soul, because Krishna didn’t give computers souls. Humans constantly try to pour all their knowledge into computers, however, they will always be limited since computers can only process what is their input. Hence, Turing’s claim that computers will have consciousness in the future is nonsense. Consciousness is a characteristic of the soul, limited awareness does not translate to consciousness. Only the Supreme Personality has the power to bestow a soul.

The deceptive statements which Turing made in his conversation:

1. One of the humanities faculty in the audience put a question after the talk “Would you want your daughter to marry one (i.e. a computer)?” Legend has it (I wasn’t there) that he answered “Yes, if she loved him.” Another version of this legend has it that someone shouted out after the question, “Why not--his wife did.”

In this statement, Turing is explaining a hypothetical situation and is also stressing the so-called “superiority” of the computers. In this statement, Turing says that a humanities faculty member, meaning a student of the arts (english, history, etc.) asked a question to the speaker in a joking manner: “Would you want your daughter to marry a computer?” Then, Turing wrote that “legend has it” that the man answered yes, if she loved him. Now, this phrase, “legend has it” means that there is a popular belief that people hold, but it is not necessarily true. So when Turing is saying that legend has it that the man replied, he is just stating in a fancier manner that the entire situation which he put forth was hypothetical. Additionally, he states that the speaker replied to the question by saying “Yes, if she loved him (referring to the computer).” By referring to the computer as “him” in this situation, Turing is reflecting his and other computer scientists’ popular belief that computers are able to have a soul and a consciousness.

1. A necessary condition for computers or robots to have a soul is that they be self-aware, be conscious.

This statement is completely false because it’s not that creating these characteristics will get somebody a soul. Once you have a soul, only then will these attributes be given. Hence, Turing saying that the computers have to become self-aware in order to get a soul is incorrect.

1. Theological objection: God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines.

The theological objection is a straw man argument which was set up by Turing. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on refuting an opponent's argument, while the argument is not actually from the opponent. In other words a straw man argument is a weak argument, cleverly established to be put down. So, in this false argument, Turing states that “God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines.” In this statement, two wrong things have been done. First of all, Turing has said that animals do not have souls, which is false. Secondly, by his way of wording, Turing has basically equated animals and machines because they both don’t have the quality of thinking, and as he had stated above, thinking=soul.

1. Rebuttal: It appears to me that (the Theological Objection) implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty.

Now, Turing seems to be taking the side of the spiritual people by saying that the theological objection puts a great restriction on the power of the Lord. This is one of his ways of refuting the objection, by telling the theists that they are limiting God.

1. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if he sees fit?

Here, Turing says “it is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do” he says “it is admitted.” But who has admitted that God has limitations? He is saying, not anyone else. In this way he is trying to make it sound like everyone is admitting that God has limitations, but that is false. Turing says, “certain things He cannot do such as making one equal two.” Wrong. Krishna can do anything that he wants, he is all powerful, omnipotent. If Krishna wants, he can make one equal to two. So Turing is saying that God has certain limitations, and then says “but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if he sees fit?” So he is saying that God has limitations, but should have the power to give a soul to an elephant. But Krishna has given a soul to the elephant at the beginning of time.

1. We might expect that he would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul.

So in the previous line, Turing basically stated that God should have the power of giving an elephant a soul. In this statement, he is saying that God would give the elephant a soul when the elephant had “a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul.” Basically, he is saying that God will automatically provide the elephant with a soul when it has evolved to the stage where it has the proper brain to foster a soul. This entire statement in incorrect. The elephant already has a soul, and Turing is saying that evolution will allow a body to get a soul.

In this statement, Turing is conveniently trying to make the Theory of Evolution a valid phenomenon in order to support his argument. By using this theory of Evolution he is making God secondary. He is saying that by evolution only will a body get a soul. By conveniently stating that the elephant will get a soul through evolution, he is trying to say that the computer will get a soul through evolution. However the true evolution is that according to its karma, the soul an appropriate body at each lifetime. Mutation creates adaptations of the body but does not create new species. At the beginning of time Krishna had created 8.4 million species in this material world,only 1.2 million of which the scientists have discovered.

Law of Gravity:

The Law of Gravity is one of Newton’s so-called “universal” Laws of Nature. However the following are its limitations:

1. If the distance between the two objects is comparable to the size of universe, it is not accurate.

2. if the distance is very small comparable to the size of atoms then it’s not accurate.

3. if the mass of one or both objects is very very massive, then it’s not accurate.

(another website states that all of Newton’s laws do not apply to the quantum realm, either)