-
5Free at last! Free at last! Thank evolution, free at last!Artificial Intelligence 169 (2): 165-173. 2005.
-
2Using regression-match graphs to control search in planningArtificial Intelligence 109 (1-2): 111-159. 1999.
-
11Planning: What it is, what it could be, an introduction to the special issue on planning and schedulingArtificial Intelligence 76 (1-2): 1-16. 1995.
-
2Building large knowledge-based systems: Representation and inference in the cyc projectArtificial Intelligence 61 (1): 53-63. 1993.
-
23A vehicle with no wheelsBehavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1): 161-161. 1999.O'Brien & Opie's theory fails to address the issue of consciousness and introspection. They take for granted that once something is experienced, it can be commented on. But introspection requires neural structures that, according to their theory, have nothing to do with experience as such. That makes the tight coupling between the two in humans a mystery.
-
40Erratum: "What does a Sloman want?"International Journal of Machine Consciousness 2 (2): 385-385. 2010.
-
55Response to The Singularity by David ChalmersJournal of Consciousness Studies 19 (1-2): 1-2. 2012.
-
117Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidityIn J. Haugel (ed.), Mind Design, Mit Press. pp. 5-18. 1981.
-
13Mind and Mechanism (edited book)Yale University. 2001.An exploration of the mind-body problem from the perspective of artificial intelligence.
-
21Optimization and connectionism are two different thingsBehavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (3): 483-484. 1989.
-
20[Star] Penrose is wrongPSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research On Consciousness 2 66-82. 1995.
-
11Higher-Order Thought Rendered Defenseless: Review of Consciousness and Self-Consciousness: A Defense of the Higher-Order Thought Theory of Consciousness by Rocco Gennaro (review)PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research On Consciousness 4. 1998.
-
28A little static for the dynamicists review of ShanahanInternational Journal of Machine Consciousness 3 (02): 361-365. 2011.
-
1445On the Claim that a Table-Lookup Program Could Pass the Turing TestMinds and Machines 24 (2): 143-188. 2014.The claim has often been made that passing the Turing Test would not be sufficient to prove that a computer program was intelligent because a trivial program could do it, namely, the “Humongous-Table (HT) Program”, which simply looks up in a table what to say next. This claim is examined in detail. Three ground rules are argued for: (1) That the HT program must be exhaustive, and not be based on some vaguely imagined set of tricks. (2) That the HT program must not be created by some set of senti…Read more
-
Yale UniversityRegular Faculty
New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
Areas of Interest
Philosophy of Mind |
Philosophy of Cognitive Science |