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!psinntp!scylla!daryl Wed Feb 26 12:53:16 EST 1992
Article 3896 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!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <1992Feb20.161306.18729@oracorp.com>
Date: 20 Feb 92 16:13:06 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 22

Curtis Dyreson writes: (in response to Pontus Gagge)

>> Oh no! I've been found out! Ummm...I ain't got no other test.
>> Seriously, though, much as I would appreciate a non-cheatable test
>> for intelligence, I doubt that one exists. 

>This is somewhat confusing then because you are easily able to
>identify intelligence in other human beings and are just as easily
>able to identify a lack of intelligence in the humongous table lookup.
>If you have no test (doesn't even have to be foolproof) for
>identification then how did you make the distinction?

I believe the distintinction is that we are confronted by actual human
beings, while we are only confronted with a description of this
table-lookup program. It is much harder to deny intelligence to a real
being. In my opinion, if there were *really* a robot who behaved
exactly like a human being, people would start to treat it as
intelligent, regardless of what was going on inside.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


