From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!mips!decwrl!mcnc!aurs01!throop Tue Jun 23 13:21:21 EDT 1992
Article 6325 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!mips!decwrl!mcnc!aurs01!throop
>From: throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is not a Trick
Message-ID: <60849@aurs01.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jun 92 17:43:27 GMT
References: <60807@aurs01.UUCP> <1992Jun12.190924.36762@spss.com> <491@tdat.teradata.COM> <1992Jun18.164543.42825@spss.com> <502@tdat.teradata.COM>
Sender: news@aurs01.UUCP
Lines: 41

> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
> Well, actually, it looks like we are not that far apart, what reamins
> is to thrash out the details.

I'm still out on the periphery.  I'm not convinced that sensorimotor
interactions are that important.  (I'm not convinced they are UN-
important either, mind you.)

For example, I'd sooner conclude intelligence in a communicant
restricted to teletype (assuming the communicant could maintain a
conversation, and contributed insightful things to it), than I would in
a flesh-and-blood person with obvious sensorimotor skills who was the
living equivalent of "racter".

> So, is there any reason other than evolutionary accessibility that requires
> complex sensory processing be *integral* to intelligence?

Yeah, what *he* said!  (I don't doubt that the processing needs to be
complext, but that it needs to be sensory.  I'd even be unsurprised
to find that it *needs* to be sensory, but I don't see another 
reason why yet.)

>|Just to give one example, watching an alien successfully repair its broken 
>|space scooter would give you good prima facie evidence for its intelligence,
>|even if it never uttered a word (besides a photic obscenity or two).
> Hmm, maybe, maybe not.  I am not sure that such behavior is not possible
> to a much less 'intelligent' being than a human.  In fact it might even be
> possible to train a chimpanzee to do simple mechanical repairs.

Chimp, ha.  For many, many repairs, a beaver or an insect colony
might do as well or better than an intelligent mechanic.  In fact,
there were several folks that were convinced that beavers *were*
intelligent, because of their "engineering" ability.

> This really looks like a job for net-brain-storming.  Any ideas anyone?
> How should we specify this to make the test actually usable?

My heart isn't in the right place to contribute, but I'd sure be
interested to follow along.

Wayne Throop       ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop


