Discussions of machine vs. living intelligence need more clarity

The debate around machine intelligence features strong opinions. Because the central questions cross many disciplinary boundaries, standardized approaches are needed to break through barriers of conflicting nomenclature and niche methods of analysis. After all, distinctions or a lack thereof between machines and living intelligences carry significant social, ethical, legal, and political implications. Some participants in this debate are certain that performance on specific metrics, or perhaps some type of Turing Test, is sufficient evidence to conclude the presence of a “real” mind. Others, of a more organicist perspective, insist on a fundamental, ontological divide between engineered “machines” and “true” (typically, biologically evolved) beings. Progress in evolutionary and developmental biology, synthetic bioengineering, and hybrid/cyborg technologies may dissolve formerly dependable categories; conceptual positions must now cover beings far beyond the more easily-handled categories of neurotypical adult modern humans and low-agency mechanical devices. Here, we propose a set of questions that should be considered and addressed by anyone seeking to form or express justified opinions about issues of intelligence, cognition, sentience, consciousness, or any of the related concepts. These questions are intended to help clarify difficulties facing a facile distinction between “true beings” and “mere machines”.