From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!pnl-oracle!duke!d3g637 Thu Jul  9 16:20:39 EDT 1992
Article 6432 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!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: <1992Jul8.223602.2807@oracle.pnl.gov>
Date: 8 Jul 92 22:36:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Jul8.223602.2807
References: <1992Jul8.170459.23090@sequent.com>
Sender: news@oracle.pnl.gov
Reply-To: d3g637@duke.oname
Organization: Battelle/Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Lines: 74

I looked at the problem in a more basic way. The truth table
for "X passes the Turing test -> X is intelligent" looks like this:

	X passes	X intelligent		true?
	------------	---------------		--------
	no		no			yes		(1)
	no		yes			yes		(2)
	yes		no			no		(3)
	yes		yes			yes		(4)

We like (1), (3) & (4) because that is what Turing meant to have happen 
(i.e the test cannot pass a non-intelligent entity and might pass an 
intelligent being).  The problem we are addressing is made evident in (2). 
The test might fail an intelligent entity.  That is why we cannot state:

	X passes the Turing test <-> X is intelligent

We know that this is not so for the Turing test.  Can another
test be devised such that:

	X passes the Comp.Ai test <-> X is intelligent

(mental discontinuity)

BTW, The reason I like the following

	X passes the Turing test <-> X communicates like a human

is also the reason it's useless: it's obvious - that's the definition
of the Turing test.  The reason I don't use it is it doesn't prove 
anything about intelligence.

(another mental discontinuity)

Since knowledge intuitively seems like a factor, I thought of defining
what a truth table that included knowledge might look like:

	X passes	X knowledge	X intelligent	true?
	--------	-----------	-------------	-----
	no		no		no		yes
	no		no		yes		yes
	no		yes		no		yes
	no		yes		yes		no
	yes		no		no		no
	yes		no		yes		no
	yes		yes		no		no
	yes		yes		yes		yes

The test cannot pass something that is not both knowledgeable and
intelligent and will fail anything that does not have both
knowledge and intelligence. The following clause seems to do it,
and it makes sense:

	X passes <-> X has knowledge & X has intelligence

Unfortunately something like:

	X passes .relation. X has knowledge <-> X has intelligence

is more useful.  Anyone really good at Boolean algebra and want
to take a crack at it? That's beyond me...




	David P. Chassin
	Applied Physics Group
	Battelle
	Pacific Northwest Laboratories
		MS K5-16
		2400 Stevens Drive
		Richland, WA  99352
	(509)375-4369
	dp_chassin@pnl.gov


