Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!ceylon!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <CzH78F.4Eq@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <39ofgk$7rb@news-rocq.inria.fr> <39oqc8$9gb@news-rocq.inria.fr> <39posv$mr0@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> <CzFr3J.990@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:26:39 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:95590 comp.ai.philosophy:22239 sci.philosophy.meta:14843

In article <CzFr3J.990@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <39posv$mr0@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> constab@unixg.ubc.ca (Adam Constabaris) writes:
........
>>Maybe there have been proponents of AI (not to mention philosophical or 
>>logical behaviorists) who have claimed that the Turing test gives us an 
>>operational *definition* of "intelligence" or "thinking", but I don't 
>>think that such a view is in any way a fundamental assumption of AI.
>
>I agree.  Nonetheless, the TT is fiercely defended.
>
As someone who defended the TT in this forum, let me once again stress
the rationale of this defence: better bird in hand than two in the bush.
If critics of TT proposed any alternative, there would be something to 
discuss. As it is, saying "there is _more_ to thinking/intelligence than
passing the TT" is meaningless if you can't say what this _more_ is. 
Whatever flaws we in the TT we can point out, it is the best we have.

>-- jd

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
