The person must decide through written correspondence (“chat”) with the adversary if the adversary is a person or a computer. A sufficiently advanced computer would be able to carry on a conversation in the same manner as a human and would pass the test. (Turing) This computer would have to be programmed with understanding gained from neuroscience and would have to possess identity. Any entity without identity could not convince a human judge of its humanity and would not pass the test. Recently, a computer program was able to convince the necessary fraction of judges at a Turing Test competition that it was human. (D’Orazio) Therefore, as neuroscience is sufficient to produce identity, it is sufficient to explain …show more content…
Other methods fall short of explaining the complexities of identity, the brain, and human experience. Traditional psychology is unable to meet the same burden of proof it sets for neuroscience. Nagel’s bat, an oft-cited refutation of a neuroscientific explanation of consciousness is inconsistent with current scientific findings and overreaching with its reliance on “alienness” as a gap between experience and form. In a similar manner, post-modernism also offers a weak explanation of identity in comparison with modern neuroscience. Neuroscience offers a much better explanation of current research. There are many things that neuroscience cannot yet explain, but this is part of its strength. As a product of the scientific method, it is ever evolving and becoming more