Q1: From “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”

On page 55, addresses what he refers to as the Theological Objection (while making a few slightly groundless assumptions that he admits as such), and compares God’s ability to create a being that is “evolved” enough to be given a soul, to our ability to create machines that can think and live. While he does admit that this would not usurp God’s power to create souls, this does begin to usurp His ability to create truly living things (as human beings merely procreate biologically). Given this, is Turing subtly implying a more humanist stance to our seemingly limitless ability to create more advanced thinking machines?

Q2: From “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”

Concerning the concept of the “child-machine”, Turing goes into great detail regarding the Teacher-Pupil relationship for this type of machine, but does not discuss other relationship types, or any other sensory environmental factors (other children/people, general surroundings, etc.) that children may typically be involved in during development. Wouldn’t the lack of these affect the accuracy and/or efficacy of this study, or are they irrelevant?

Q3: From “The Mathematics of Communication”

Is the communication problem of ‘semantics’ (and also ‘influence’/’effectiveness’, by extension) in its full nuance (as in, beyond simple language barriers and into complexities of social behavior, euphemism, emotion, etc.) something that only belongs to human communication, or can machines “mathematically” replicate it?