From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Fri Jan 31 10:26:58 EST 1992
Article 3262 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: <1992Jan29.202855.3690@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Jan28.152311.30787@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Jan28.165346.10909@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Jan28.190719.905@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 20:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Jan28.190719.905@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Jan28.165346.10909@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>
>>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. 
>
> No.  You don't understand.  Either that, or you are god.
>
> It is time enough for the philosophical analysis when there is a computer
>which passes the Turing Test, and you have found out how it does it.  Until
>then you are only philosophizing about the limits of your imagination, not
>about the limits of the machine.

Well, this seems to imply that we needn't even consider if computers
are intelligent/conscious until we get one to pass the Turing Test.  Until
then, we should assume not.

- michael



