From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel Wed Apr 22 12:04:24 EDT 1992
Article 5179 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel
>From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.194826.10713@javelin.sim.es.com>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
References: <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr21.140730.18351@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 19:48:26 GMT
Lines: 40

pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:

>In article <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>>........
>>The arguments pro and con the Turing test are moot for me, as I know that
>>it would take an exposure to a truly moving piece of art produced by a 
>>computer - a symphony equal to one of Borodin's, for example - before I could
>>fully accept the awareness of a machine. Such acceptance would come as
>>an overwhelmingly pleasant shock of recognition, not as the grudging
>>acceptance of the concensus judgement of a panel of computer scientists.
>>I have enjoyed earning my keep among their ranks for some years, and I
>>know our strengths and limits too well. My heart requires rather more
>>evidence than my head, but it responds much more strongly. I suspect that
>>the same is true of many others as well.
>>
>By your standards, 99% of humans (or more, me including :-() would not be 
>accepted by you as fully self-aware beings! Have you thought out the impli-
>cations of your criterion? Can you yourself create a piece of music equal to
>one of Borodin's symphonies (to stick with your example)? 

Alas, I am not, nor are, as you point out, the vast majority of human beings.
I chose a complex work of music primarily because it has direct appeal to
me, not because I expect any computer to reach this goal anytime soon. The
proposed test is intended to reduce the number of false positives to
an absolute minimum. Esthetic criteria other than those I listed might
ver well be acceptable to others.
>If not, then am I
>justified in dismissing you incapable of 'human intelligence and awareness'?

No, but you are justified in classing me with those systems incapable
of passing this test. Reducing the number of false positives says nothing
about the number of false negatives. Perhaps I shall pass with a sonnet,
or a bon mot...

>It seems to me you are giving your heart too much control over your head ;-).

I have nothing to say about it; that's the whole point of the exercise.

Regards,
       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com


