From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Thu Apr 30 15:22:31 EDT 1992
Article 5239 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr24.154950.25222@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr21.221135.20165@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Apr23.152759.2272@javelin.sim.es.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 15:49:50 GMT

In article <1992Apr23.152759.2272@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
(in reply to Daryl McCullough)
>
>As I recall, the Turing test is a pretty simple affair, consisting
>of a couple of teletype machines and a human interlocutor who is
>challenged to decide which - if any - of the two teletypes is connected
>to a computer, and which is manned by a person. Nothing is said about
>any special qualifications of any human in this arrangement, and the
>antire arrangement invites an attempt at mimicry, rather than deep
>understanding or awareness. Implicit in the formulation of the test
>by Turing was the assumption that human beings are rather good at
>detecting simple mimicry, and that it ultimately does not matter
>how the effect is achieved, if it fools people it is good enough, an
>operationalist definition of intelligence.
>
You seem to suggest that Turing was so stupid as not to see a difference 
between real intelligence and good mimicry of one.

>To reiterate: the Turing test does *not* depend on being able to fool
>all the people all the time; hell, even I can't do that.
>
No! Turing test *depends* on not being able to fool all the people all 
the time. 
>
>>If on the other hand computers were programmed to produce
>>music, then you would consider that awareness? Utter BS!
>>No, awareness requires a demonstration of that awareness,
>>and only the Turing test is available to demonstrate to
>>a high degree the awareness exhibited.
>
>This, I assume, is pronounced ex cathedra, and is hence infallible?
>
Do you have any better way of establishing awareness? Your 'Borodin
symphony' test would fail most people, as you've agreed yourself so I do not
think it is an alternative.

>You seem to think of the Turing test as some generic means of establishing
>awareness on the part of others; t'aint so. I have no idea of what you
>mean by "...this ingraining of knowledge was hard-won though carefull (sic)
>Turing testing."
>
Obviously you do not fully appreciate what 'Turing test' means.

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


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


