From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Fri Jan 31 10:26:33 EST 1992
Article 3219 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.165346.10909@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <11980@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1992Jan28.152311.30787@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 16:53:46 GMT

In article <1992Jan28.152311.30787@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <11980@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>>In article  <1992Jan27.225454.1257@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
>>] I agree this falls far short of a validation of the Turing Test.  But it
>>]is somewhat premature to call it "failed and groundless".  Unless, of course,
>>]you have a totally closed mind.
>>
>>Yes, I guess I do.  What open-minded person would be so contentiously
>>unwilling to accept appearence as substance?  And how can I be so
>
> I guess you still don't understand.
>
> Closed minded: "Machines can't be intelligent, because they can't understand,
>		 because syntax can't produce semantics, etc, etc,
>		 and the Turing Test is therefore failed and groundless."
>
> Open minded but skeptical:   "I am highly doubtful that machines can ever
>		 be truly intelligent.  But show me a machine that passes
>		 the Turing Test, and I will review my judgement at that
>		 time.  Be warned, I will not accept a machine as intelligent
>		 if it uses some method I would consider cheating.  And the
>		 methods used by Eliza, by current day expert systems, and
>		 by brute force exhaustive search approaches are all cheating
>		 as far as I am concerned."
>

Neil, I think it is *you* who do not understand.  The issue is *not* whether
a computer can pass the Turing Test, but what such an accomplishment would
*mean*.  I my view, this can *only* be uncovered by philosophical analysis, and
*not* by empirical means. 
  

And, BTW, given your list above, I would be curious to know what you *wouldn't*
consider "cheating".  What are your criteria?

- michael 


