From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Jan 28 12:15:01 EST 1992
Article 2958 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.174159.29963@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 17:41:59 GMT

Jeff Dalton writes:

>>Why does anyone have to _show_ that it is impossible? The Turing Test
>>isn't a proof of intelligence, it is just supposed to constitute
>>empirical evidence. 

> Why is it such good evidence?  Because it works for people?
> So what?

You missed my point. I don't understand why you (or your hypothetical
person) is willing to believe that "correct behavior without
understanding" is impossible, while he is not willing to believe that
"correct behavior is sufficient to indicate understanding". Since they
are logically equivalent, why would you require more evidence in the
latter case than in the former case?

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


