Quoted from Astropin:
It's not magic at all. It is 1's and 0's...but here is where you seem to get confused...there is NO difference between "simulated intelligence" and "intelligence" , none. If it can pass a Turing test, it's intelligent...done. It does not matter how it arrives at its answers only that it does.
I'm not confused at all. The Turing test is not an infallible determination of intelligence IMO. I understand if in your opinion it is. There are many ideas presented in SciFi novels and movies that do not fit the reality of how things (computers specifically) work. Subsequently, there are many non-SciFi books that build upon these ideas. There is a big difference between simulated emotions and real emotions, as well as simulated "self awareness" and actual self awareness.
The idea passing a humans consciousness from themselves and into a computer - while still "being" that person are incorrect.
Turing himself recognized that his tests are for "Simulated Intelligence", and chose to avoid the discussion argument...
The Turing test is concerned strictly with how the subject acts – the external behaviour of the machine. In this regard, it takes a behaviourist or functionalist approach to the study of the mind. The example of ELIZA suggests that a machine passing the test may be able to simulate human conversational behaviour by following a simple (but large) list of mechanical rules, without thinking or having a mind at all.
John Searle has argued that external behaviour cannot be used to determine if a machine is "actually" thinking or merely "simulating thinking." His Chinese room argument is intended to show that, even if the Turing test is a good operational definition of intelligence, it may not indicate that the machine has a mind, consciousness, or intentionality. (Intentionality is a philosophical term for the power of thoughts to be "about" something.)
Turing anticipated this line of criticism in his original paper, writing:
I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. There is, for instance, something of a paradox connected with any attempt to localise it. But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper.
--- Turing simply limited himself (and his test) to a smaller definition of what "Thinking" or "Intelligence" is. So, yes - computers can "think" by this limited definition of what thinking is. But that is not the type of "thinking" that is being implied/discussed in this topic.