From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdat!swf Tue Jun 23 13:21:05 EDT 1992
Article 6298 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utcsri!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdat!swf
>From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is not a Trick
Message-ID: <491@tdat.teradata.COM>
Date: 17 Jun 92 22:05:36 GMT
References: <1992Jun11.154029.29686@Princeton.EDU> <60807@aurs01.UUCP> <1992Jun12.190924.36762@spss.com>
Sender: news@tdat.teradata.COM
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
Lines: 45

In article <1992Jun12.190924.36762@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
|In article <60807@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|>Similarly, if what's important about a human is their communicative
|>ability, it doesn't matter if they are speaking english or signing
|>ASL.  
|
|To me, that's far too narrow.  If we're trying to define or detect
|intelligence, I am not willing to restrict it to the ability to communicate
|by teletype;

I tend to agree in pronciple, but we still need to be careful about what we
include, and what weighting we give it.

|I also want to look at complex sensory processing,

Still too vague, does E.T. have to have eyes?, or wwill sonar do, or niether?
Does its language *have* to be sonic, or can it be, say, photic?

|intonation,

Why should E.T. physiology be capable of anything resembling human intonation?

|nonverbal behavior,

Again,we need to be more specific, and try to make sure the required non-
verbal behavior is atually relevent to 'intelligence'.

|social interaction, creativity, and more.  

These are good (especially since I believe intelligence evolved in humans
largely for due to the requirements of social interactions).



As may be clear now, I consider it an important criterion for any *reasonable*
test of 'intelligence' that it be able to pass an non-human extreterrestrial,
even if it has a significantly *different* biology than a human.

I think this is a good 'gedanken' approach to seperating the necessary
features from the irrelevant.  If it is not relevant for an E.T., it is not
relevant for a computer.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


