From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff Tue Jan 28 12:17:29 EST 1992
Article 3127 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan24.184153.8942@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Jan 92 18:41:53 GMT
References: <42032@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Jan22.223100.7270@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan23.024931.20070@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 15

In article <1992Jan23.024931.20070@milton.u.washington.edu> forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:
>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?

I think it is likely to be misunderstood.


