From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!ogicse!milton!forbis Tue Jan 28 12:16:18 EST 1992
Article 3043 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!ogicse!milton!forbis
>From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.024931.20070@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 92 02:49:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: milton.1992Jan23.024931.20070
References: <6031@skye.ed.ac.uk> <42032@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Jan22.223100.7270@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 19

In article <1992Jan22.223100.7270@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>neither the Turing Test not conversation in general is
>all "observable consequences".  It's wrong to go from "there have
>to be observable consequences" to "there have to conversational
>consequences".  Whenever someone does this, and it's pretty common
>in these debates, I have to wonder whether they're not just
>transferring their views on the significance of observabale
>consequences to the Turing Test without any further justification.

As one who falls into this category I wish to explain the paradigm under which
I labor, that is, I think of all cause and effect as an exchange between 
entities--a conversation if you will.  Is this inappropriate?

>Indeed, this happens so often that I sometimes wonder how many
>of the other supporters of the TT are making the same mistake.

>-- jd

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu


