Maps | General information (large file!) | Details and features | Specifications | Issue areas | Press release
Methodology | Background paper | The cartographic metaphor | Criteria | How the maps work (large file!)
For Instructors and Students | Importance of Turing debate | For instructors | For students | Protagonist index | FAQS
Commentary and Reviews | Commentary and reviews | Errata and corrections
Action Items | Buy the set of maps | How you can participate in this debate
Examples | View the maps. | Map 1 | Map 2 | Map 3 | Map 4 | Map 5 | Map 6 | Map 7 | (large files!)
MacroVU home page | Send us a message | Project Director's Home Page

1. Use published arguments.
Only those arguments were included that have been published in an established print or electronic medium: journals (including reputable electronic journals and white papers), magazines, and books. Arguments made in Usenet newsgroups, electronic forums, e-mail exchanges, or in interpersonal debate were excluded as too ephemeral and as representing positions still in development. Such arguments will be excluded until they appear in a more established medium.

2. Use arguments that lie within the scope of the map.
The major claim that machines can or will be able to think-determines the scope of these maps. Many threads of argument drift away from the central issue into such related territories as the mind­body problem, functionalism, and the philosophy of science. Such claims were set aside until a chance arises to map neighboring territories with maps of their own.

3. Seek out the historically earliest or best-known version of an argument.
When different authors make similar arguments, we chose the version which was either historically earliest, or the best-known version of the argument. When the best-known version is used, the historically earliest version is usually mentioned in a note. In the few cases in which differing versions of an argument are sufficiently unique or separately disputed, each is summarized separately.

4. Avoid loosely drawn arguments.
Sometimes an author makes an argument loosely, at the end of a paragraph, as an aside, or in a footnote. In general, such arguments are not included unless they are developed further in follow-up articles or are the focus of further debate.

5. Avoid repetitive, nitpicking, or duplicative arguments.
One goal of the maps is facilitation of productive debate. Ad hominem arguments, redundant rounds of back-and-forth, and tediously nitpicky arguments were left out.

6. Avoid forbiddingly technical discussion.
Highly technical arguments, which are based on extensive symbolic notation and formalisms, could not be represented with the cartographic conventions we developed, or at the scale we chose to work at. However, summaries of many technical and symbolic discussions were included. Only the most forbidding had to be excluded.

7. Summarize the author's published claim.
Many authors hold views today that are different from those they expressed at the time they entered into the debate. We include authors' claims as published. If an author later changed his or her position, and published the change, the new claim was included and the change of position was noted. But if no new contribution has been made, then the original published view stands.

8. Include some historical arguments.
In order to properly situate the debate in its historical context, we included a sampling of notable historical supports of contemporary arguments.

9. Include some experimental results.
To situate the debate in a context of concrete experimental and computational results, we included some implemented systems AND empirical results. Again, we only included a small sample of such results, sticking to famous and notable computer models and experiments.

10. Include a small sample of outrageous and humorous arguments.
Some of the stronger and stranger claims were worth including just to liven things up and have some fun. Such claims also provide "targets" for what we anticipate will be lively threads of response.