From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose Thu Feb 20 15:22:19 EST 1992
Article 3886 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: That damn humongous table again
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.235712.30220@spss.com>
Date: 19 Feb 92 23:57:12 GMT
References: <1992Feb19.135322.12283@oracorp.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1992Feb19.135322.12283@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>Nobody is claiming that the table look-up system is a model of the way
>the human mind works. It obviously computes its outputs in a very
>different way. However, the question is why should such non-human
>processing be considered unintelligent (or not conscious)?
> 
>I disagree, by the way, that there is anything "simple" about the
>table look-up program. The data, the humongous table, is *enormously*
>complex; it is only the control structure that is simple. The
>complexity of a system must, in my opinion, include the complexity of
>the data as well as the complexity of the processor.

When you interact with the lookup-program-and-table ensemble, you are
in effect having a predetermined dialogue with the human(s) who created the
table.  (I think Toby Kelsey made this point a few days ago.)

So, the table lookup program is neither a failure of the Turing test
(there _is_ an intelligence there), nor an example of non-human
intelligence.   (Sure, the interaction with it is occuring _via_ a
machine, but so is the interaction with the real human in a Turing
test.)


