From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel Thu Apr 30 15:22:57 EDT 1992
Article 5284 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!javelin.sim.es.com!biesel
>From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr27.162558.9544@javelin.sim.es.com>
Date: 27 Apr 92 16:25:58 GMT
References: <1992Apr23.152759.2272@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr24.154950.25222@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Apr24.182714.17683@javelin.sim.es.com> <1992Apr27.082403.8235@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Lines: 49

zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:

...[much mercifully deleted]...

...referring to earlier exchanges that used "Turing testing" as an
apparent shorthand for people recognizing each others awareness...

>>Perhaps you could explain to what the quoted sentence means,
>>and how I can come to fully appreciate what 'Turing test' means? I am
>>thus far unaware of any "Turing testing" of any machine intelligence,
>>the occasional playing with Eliza clones excepted. The programs I know
>>about are without exception abysmally stupid and totally devoid of anything
>>approaching awareness. 
>>
>I will tell you what I mean!
>First, how did you determine that the machines that you tested
>are "abysmally stupid and totally devoid of anything approaching
>awareness"??? If you did not determine this by the exact methog
>described by Alan Turing then I will eat my shoes!

Do you like 'em well done, with a Bearnaise Sauce?

I have never applied the Turing test to any subject, human or computer.
My opinions of programs so tested are second hand and anecdotal. My direct
exposure to programs has been limited to the kind of informal doodling
that I would prefer *not* to call Turing testing, precisely because it
is so informal and lacking in rigor. Since there are no programs that
would have even a faint chance of passing a rigorous test of even a few 
minutes, the whole point is moot.

>	You yourself have used the Turing test, and failed to
>recognize it! I can say with confidence that there is NO OTHER
>METHOD OF DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE! (remember that we are
>not talking of any simple test paper that Turing wrote! We
>are talking of the method of testing!)

If I understand you correctly, your definition of the Turing test is
primarily an extended interaction with some entity - human or artificial -
with a gradually increasing degree of confidence that the entity is, or
is not, intelligent and aware. That is certainly one way of determining
intelligence. However, this method fails in determing the intelligence of
Beethoven, for example. Therefore I am inclined to accept the intelligence 
and awareness of Beethoven on the strength of any of his symphonies,
or that of Twain on the evidence of "Huckleberry Finn".

I'm still reserving judgement on Mondrian ;-)

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


