From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu. Thu Jan 16 17:19:33 EST 1992
Article 2629 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.
edu!fb0m+
>From: fb0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Franklin Boyle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence testing
Message-ID: <YdPRU9e00WBNI2Vnw_@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 92 17:29:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.YdPRU9e00WBNI2Vnw_
Organization: Cntr for Design of Educational Computing, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 17

Daryl McCullough writes (in response to Jeff Dalton):

>There are only a finite number of possible sensible
>conversations in Chinese in the lifetime of a human being. The
>computer could store all of these, and do a simple table look-up, as
>someone (perhaps you) has pointed out in the past.

Gee, how does a simple table lookup work on such a data base?  I
would think that keyword matching is hardly adequate.  And
the jury is still out on semantic indexing (after all, the issue
we're arguing over concerns semantics).  If you believe that you
can capture all possible conversational sequences, remember:  
the future may involve a context in which a new concept is created
that you wouldn't have had when you programmed in all possible 
conversations.

-Frank 


