CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Blockhead (thought experiment)

philosophical thought experiment about a computer which has been programmed with all possible sentences in a natural language, so as to be able to pass the Turing test despite lacking intelligence

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 22, 2026
Entity authorityQ4927272
Source-derived summary

Blockhead is a theoretical computer system invented as part of a thought experiment by philosopher Ned Block, which appeared in a paper titled "Psychologism and Behaviorism". Block did not personally name the computer in the paper, but in 1993 F. Jackson claimed that this name "has become traditional".

The Shannon–McCarthy Objection

In 1956, Claude Shannon and John McCarthy proposed a counterargument to the Turing test that it could be defeated by an architecturally simple system containing a hypothetical astronomically large lookup table of any conversations possible between the computer and the interrogator during a realistic test. In 1981, it was rediscovered by Ned Block and is usually associated with his name.

Overview

In "Psychologism and Behaviorism", Block argues that the internal mechanism of a system is important in determining whether that system is intelligent and claims to show that a non-intelligent system could pass the Turing test. Block asks the reader to imagine a conversation lasting any given amount of time. He states that given the nature of language, there are a finite number of syntactically and grammatically correct sentences that can be used to start a conversation. Consequently, there is a limit to how many "sensible" responses can be made to the first sentence, then to the second sentence, and so on until the conversation ends. Block then asks the reader to imagine a computer which had been programmed with all the sentences in theory, if not in practice. Block argues that such a machine could continue a conversation with a person on any topic because the computer would be programmed with every sentence that it was possible to use so the computer would be able to pass the Turing test despite the fact that—according to Block—it was not intelligent.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Blockhead (thought experiment)” as philosophical thought experiment about a computer which has been programmed with all possible sentences in a natural language, so as to be able to pass the Turing test despite lacking intelligence. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Blockhead, thought and experiment.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1993, 1956, 1981—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Blockhead, thought and experiment providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Blockhead (thought experiment)”, the useful work is to connect “philosophical thought experiment about a computer which has been programmed with all possible sentences in a natural language, so as to be able to pass the Turing test despite lacking intelligence” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4927272. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993, 1956 and 1981.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Blockhead (thought experiment)”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Blockhead (thought experiment) primary sources, Blockhead (thought experiment) archive and Blockhead research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Blockhead (thought experiment)”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Blockhead (thought experiment)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.