From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tarpit!cs.ucf.edu!news Tue Jan 21 09:26:49 EST 1992
Article 2851 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tarpit!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Cargo Cult Science
Message-ID: <1992Jan17.154642.8866@cs.ucf.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <1992Jan16.175850.26988@oracorp.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 15:46:42 GMT

In article <1992Jan16.175850.26988@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
| Marc Green writes:
| 
| > It's clear from the discussion that advocates of Strong-AI, and
| > computer scientists in general, don't have much understanding of
| > empirical science. The essense of science is refutability. 
| 
| There are several questions associated with Strong AI, and I don't
| think any of them are scientific questions:
| 
|      1. Is it possible to build a machine that could pass the Turing Test?
| 
| This is not a scientific question, it is an engineering question,
| 
|      2. If a machine can pass the Turing Test, does that mean it "really
|         understands"?
| 
| This is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question

I believe this is too simple.  In physics/engineering the question:

	I.  Is it possible to build a faster than light machine?

Is not an engineering question.  Current scientific knowledge says this is
impossible.  A similar situation may obtain in AI.  Daryl's "machine" in
his question 1 presumably means a Turing machine. All the discussion by
Penrose et al, raises the question that there exist real, physical devices
that can do more (e.g. think) than Turing machines.   
		Thus the question has considerable structure:

1.  What sort of device is needed for thought?  We know brains work.

		1A.  If Turing machines suffice?  Then it is an "engineering" problem
							to find the correct algorithm.

	 1B.  If Turing machines are not good enough, then what it?

			    1B1.  If thought is phyical, then again "engineer" a non-biological
             intelligence.

							1B2.  If thought is nonphysical???? Have scientifically demonstrated
	             existence of soul?   

Continuing my analogy, the question

II.  If a machine goes from (x1,t1) to (x1,t2) and |x1-x2|/|t1-t2|>c, then
    is it traveling faster than the speed of light?

Is a definition, almost a tautology. Whether it warps, wormholes, time-travels
and takes a slow boat, does not matter; it is traveling faster than c.
I take the Turing test in the same sense.  If a device passes an extended  
Turing test so that in conversing with it over a period of time, I cannot  
distinguish it from a human intelligence, then the device is thinking. 
    That is the genious of Turing's test.  What else could thought be? 
	   


