From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Thu Apr 30 15:22:56 EDT 1992
Article 5282 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: <1992Apr27.172946.13989@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Apr21.221135.20165@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Apr23.152759.2272@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr24.154950.25222@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Apr24.174822.29402@spss.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 17:29:46 GMT

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 
>(Andrzej Pindor) writes (quoting Heiner Biesel):
>>>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.
>
>It's not certain that you know what it is yourself, if you think it's
>something people apply to each other.
>
Please read Antun Zirdum's posting #6198. I find it hard to add much to what he
says.

>"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 disagree. Expanding the term is not cofusing to me at all. On the contrary,
it is very much in the spirit of the test (as I see it). 

>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.

I would also like that we had other criteria for intelligence (and awareness)
than behaviour, but point is that we don't! And no one has shown that such
criteria are possible. May be intelligence and awareness are such 'objects' 
that the behaviour can be an only indication of them. Of course no one has
shown the contrary either, but the fact is that we do not have anything else.
So, untill you or anyone else comes up with something better, we are left 
with having to manage with this criterion, however unsatisfactory (or even
disgusting) such a state of affairs may seem.
-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


