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!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!unido!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff Fri Jan 31 10:26:45 EST 1992
Article 3240 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3240 sci.philosophy.tech:1986
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!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!unido!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Keywords: table-lookup,AI
Message-ID: <1992Jan29.023448.11610@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Jan 92 02:34:48 GMT
References: <1992Jan25.224700.8656@ida.liu.se> <1992Jan28.164711.8184@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 29

In article <1992Jan28.164711.8184@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Jan25.224700.8656@ida.liu.se> 
>c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:

>>Pro primo: The table-lookup passes the Turing test by *definition*. There
>>*is* no conversation which makes it fail the Turing test - to reveal that
>>it is not a human. Whatever extra condition you pose (time, city, earlier
>>conversations) may be met by simply augmenting the definition.
>
>Not true.  Temporal considerations undermine the very idea of a static
>table, requiring constant update thereof through some input mechanism.
>Once this is admitted, you are faced with the problem of representing
>contextual information in a fashion that lends itself to an application of
>the same lexicographic ordering device used in the construction of the
>original table.  At this point, the issue of knowledge representation rears
>its ugly head.  Sorry, but until you find a way to deal with all this, the
>question of table-lookup Turing-cheater has to be answered in the negative.

I still don't see what's wrong with a static table.  How is it
different from someone who's been asleep (while the table was
built, say) and is now sitting in a room empty except for a 
teletype?  What constant update is required?

>I am afraid you misunderstood me.  My point was that, due to the contextual
>factors, the "conversation state" can't be determined on the basis of words
>alone.  Once again, the semantic and pragmatic issues have to be addressed
>before you can declare the syntactical aspect to be under control.

Why do they have to be addressed after the creation of the table?


