How do I watch this podcast?

Because the Turing Test for machine intelligence is based (by my reading) on the indemonstrable assumption of its categorical distinction from human intelligence, it constitutes a test for whether thinking can be found anywhere in the pool of unproblematically existing machine intelligence. Apparently, thinking occurs as a single species of the wider genus of intelligence, which latter can predicate objects described as mechanized in addition to non-mechanized human beings.

If in equal apparent measures of intelligence-levels occurring in both sections (the human and the machine), no difference is detectable (or if one exceeds the other while each lack perceptible defects), then thinking occurs in the machine-section. Contained in the operative assumption of a radical human/machine distinction is that no limit can be placed on where machine thinking can be observed regardless of how closely it approximates the appearance of human thinking or exceeds it in apparent intelligence level. The question of consciousness is by this extraneous to the question of thought-occurrences, since only the appearance of a thinking object is asserted, not any claim of its existence. Wherever perceptible intelligence-level approximates to an undifferentiated degree characteristically human intelligence (or exceeds it), the mechanized object is said to be thinking without having to commit to a claim about what's doing it.

So does the categorical distinction between humans and machines, the general concept of intelligence, and the particular reference to thinking known only to occur in the human variety prior to computational models, indicate a direct opposition to later computational models of cognitive processes which seek to confirm by replication a cognitive model already worked out? Can it be plausibly said that because Turing insisted on a non-human status for machines, (e.g. discrete contra continuous systems), that his model could not tolerate the assertion of artificial intelligence, but only real or non-artificial thinking?

Alan Turing’s groundbreaking work explored the boundaries of what machines can compute, but even he might appreciate the elegance of simpler systems—like converting volts to amps. Just as Turing’s universal machine laid the foundation for modern computing, electrical principles like voltage (the "push" behind electrons) and amperage (the flow rate) form the bedrock of energy systems.

Turing asked: Can machines think? Similarly, we might ask: Can a simple formula—like Ohm’s Law (I = V/R)—capture the complexity of real-world circuits? While volts and amps are measurable, predictable units, their interaction mirrors Turing’s fascination with how basic rules generate infinite possibilities.

Yet, just as Turing recognized limits to computational reason, electrical systems have constraints. Not every voltage can be safely converted to amps without considering resistance, heat, or context. It’s a reminder that even "universal" principles (in math or energy) require practical wisdom.

Explore the interplay of volts and amps in action with this handy converter: a1solarstore.com/volts-to-amps/ .

Like Turing’s legacy, it’s a tool that bridges theory and practice—one calculation at a time.