From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!pnl-oracle!duke!d3g637 Thu Jul  9 16:20:34 EDT 1992
Article 6426 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!pnl-oracle!duke!d3g637
>From: d3g637@duke.oname (David P. Chassin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jul7.214542.13861@oracle.pnl.gov>
Date: 7 Jul 92 21:45:42 GMT
References: <4eKPF7_00WAL01Wvsr@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@oracle.pnl.gov
Reply-To: d3g637@duke.oname
Organization: Battelle/Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Lines: 53

In article 00WAL01Wvsr@andrew.cmu.edu, bh1q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bob Troyer Hansen) writes:
>> 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.
>

Quite right.  What I was getting at is more along the lines of:

	X passes the test -> X communicates intelligently

The reason for my concern is that it seems quite a bit easier, in my
opinion, to write a program that converses intelligently instead
of being intelligent.

bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>In an effort to detail a better definition of intelligence I offer the 
>following premise:
>
>	Intelligence is distinct from knowledge.
(impolitely deleted text)
>My statement that they are distinct follows not from the argument that 
>intelligence can be demonstrated without knowledge, but, rather, from a more
>fundamental position that intelligence is the embodiment of an act and
>knowledge is the embodiment of (presumed) facts.  


which leads me to think Turings test might be better stated:

	X passes the test AND X uses knowledge -> X is intelligent

Any thoughts?


	David P. Chassin
	Research Scientist
	Building Systems Performance Group
	Energy Sciences Department
	Applied Physics Group
	Battelle
	Pacific Northwest Laboratories
		MS K5-16
		2400 Stevens Drive
		Richland, WA  99352
	(509)375-4369
	dp_chassin@pnl.gov


