From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Thu Apr 30 15:22:51 EDT 1992
Article 5274 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.083621.9441@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
References: <1992Apr23.152759.2272@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr24.154950.25222@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Apr24.174822.29402@spss.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 08:36:21 GMT
Lines: 39

In article <1992Apr24.174822.29402@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <1992Apr24.154950.25222@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca 
>"Turing test" sometimes seems to be used to mean any probing for intelligence
>based on behavior.  Expanding the term in this way creates confusion and
>violates Turing's original conception, which was surely to simplify the
>problem and focus attention on what he thought was the crux of what
>intelligence is.
>
>I think no one should be satisfied to stop at the Turing Test.  If we humans
>have the ability to judge, based on behavior, whether something is 
>intelligent, then we are applying a set of criteria (perhaps in a very
>complex way).  It is those criteria that we should be elucidating.
>
>To define intelligence by referring to the Turing Test is like defining a
>dog as "something a human being calls a dog."  To say the least, we need
>to go a bit deeper than that.

There is nothing deeper than the bottom! I think that we are
all making a mistake of looking for something that is not
there, this is unlike looking for a black cat in a dark room
- the cat is really there! As I have said before, What if anything
do you do to determine that something is intelligent/aware. ( I
combine these terms as I cannot imagine awareness without
intelligence, and vice.v)
Your dog comparison is a dog, to say the least! By defering to
the turing test, we define a dog as something that belongs to
a certain genus, and has four legs, and barks, and....
Now a child may be wrong about something being a dog, but if
everyone agreed that it was a dog, then it is a dog!
In other words there is nothing about the dog that would
make it a dog without humans to deterimine so.
But the point is that WE must have a valid reason for
calling it a dog!

-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


