From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga Thu Feb 20 15:20:43 EST 1992
Article 3726 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga
>From: c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <1992Feb14.021323.22470@ida.liu.se>
Date: 14 Feb 92 02:13:23 GMT
References: <1992Feb4.162016.13805@cs.ucf.edu> <1992Feb12.002312.19459@ida.liu.se> <1992Feb12.145716.22305@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb13.073457.16647@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 54

onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

>In article <1992Feb12.145716.22305@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>>Anyway, I seem to meet no further resistance to my original 
>>>statement that
>>>  a) the table-cheat is in principle possible
>>>  b) it would pass the Turing Test
>>>  c) it would be completely uninteresting.
>>>Even the ever-combative mr. Zeleny has agreed to drop his objection.
>>>
>>>Is everybody happy that a DFA exists which passes a Turing Test, and
>>>does so in a completely uninteresting manner? Is the Turing Test still
>>>a good criterion for intelligence?
>>
>>If it quacks like a duck!
>>All I would like to argue is that if it was possible to actually construct
>>such a table (which it is not!) what is your objection to calling it
>>intelligent???

> I am not sure what Antun's objection would be; however mine is simple.
>If our intention of understanding intelligence is to understand the
>human mind because the human mind is intelligent; then we must determine
>intelligence within in a human setting.  Since, as you mentioned, such
>a table would not be possible, and since it is thought, unless we be
>dualistic or something, that our minds are not humongous tables 

Say again? Why dualism, in particular?

                                                                 then
>why would we want to deem it intelligent?  If intelligence is purported
                           ^^ ? Our minds, or the table? Mind your anaphora!
>to be a human characteristic (an possbily animal, although I have objected
>to this as well before on grounds of possible equivocation) then 
>we can not attribute it to something like a humongous table since the
>table does not exist in our minds.  IN sum, our minds are something
>different than a humongous table.  

Naturally, the table-cheat is not proposed as a *model* of human 
consciousness; that's the whole point. However, it is by definition,
and in the Turing Test context, *behaviourally equivalent* to a 
human.

Two corrolaries:
  * Human behaviour (at least in the Test) is DFA-describable
  * The test can admit an entity one would not (at least *I* would
    not) deem intelligent (in the interesting sense); what then
    about its usefulness as an operationalist criterion.
--
/-------------------------+-------- DISCLAIMER ---------\
| Pontus Gagge            | The views expressed herein  |
| University of Link|ping | are compromises between my  |
|                         | mental subpersonae, and may |
| c89ponga@und.ida.liu.se | be held by none of them.    |
\-------------------------+-----------------------------/


