From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!bh1q+ Thu Jul  9 16:20:32 EDT 1992
Article 6423 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!bh1q+
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Message-ID: <4eKPF7_00WAL01Wvsr@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue,  7 Jul 1992 11:12:07 -0400 
>From: Bob Troyer Hansen <bh1q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
In-Reply-To: <1992Jul7.002937.27952@oracle.pnl.gov>
Lines: 15

Excerpts from netnews.comp.ai.philosophy: 7-Jul-92 Re: Defining other
intellig.. by DP Chassin@duke.oname 
> I have trouble
> separating the outward evidence of intelligence such as speaking or
> planning from the inward activity itself.  This, I think, is the
essence of > the problem with the Turing Test.

The Turing Test is not a test that can determine the absence of
intelligence. The point of the turing test is an implication of the form:
    X passes the test -> X posesses intelligence.
As I recall from my logic courses, this does not state that all
intelligences will pass the test, nor does it state that failing the
test is a sign of lacking intelligence.

                                -Bob


