From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman Wed Feb  5 11:56:21 EST 1992
Article 3412 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <12183@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 92 20:32:01 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 61

In article  <42349@dime.cs.umass.edu> Joseph O'Rourke writes:
]In article <11976@optima.cs.arizona.edu> David Gudeman writes:
]>   In article  <42304@dime.cs.umass.edu> Joseph O'Rourke writes:
]>   
]>   ]1. Understanding (grasping meanings of) is impossible without
]>   ]   consciousness.
]>   ]
]>   ]2. It is possible that consciousness does not require biological tissue.
]>   ]
]>   ]3. As a result of a deep Turing Test -like conversation with a machine,
]>   ]   you have to admit that it seems the machine grasps meanings.
]>   
]>   ]4. Since you believe (1), you are led to wonder if perhaps the machine
]>   ]   is conscious.
]>   
]>   Yes, it is a possibility to consider, but it is far from established
]
]At first I thought this was a big step from your earlier phrasings, such
]as "I'm saying you have no reason at all to believe that a machine 
]understands just because you can't stump it with hard questions,"
]or "the test provides no evidence at all."

The conclusion of number 4 depends on an argument from analogy.  This
is a very weak form of argument, and cannot be used to draw
conclusions in the face of any degree of doubt in its results.  In
particular, when you have a simpler explanation that is known to be
true, there is no motivation for adding this conclusion.

]  But later you say:

]>   But now add the propositions
]>   
]>   7. The machine answers questions by purely syntactic manipulations.
]>   
]>   8. Consciousness doesn't seem to have any relationship to syntactic
]>   manipulations.
]>   
]>   And your possibility 4, which was never more than a 50-50 proposition
]>   anyway, becomes seriously doubtful.
]
]The key seems to be how firmly you hold (8): clearly you hold it so
]firmly that it overpowers any implication of (1)+(2)+(3).
]	Having elucidated all this, it is now clear that neither of
]us (nor other participants, I think) are making major logical errors:
]our differences come down to the relative strengths with which we
]hold certain dubious propositions.  I don't believe in (8) very firmly; 
]nor am I so sure about (1).

Note that (1) is part of what is needed to prove _your_ side, not
mine.  What I meant by 8 is

8b. There isn't any theory or argument that can show any sort of
relationship between consciousness and the particular syntactic
manipulations that the computer is using.

What I was looking for in this discussion is an argument that would
make 8 false.  Needless to say, I have been sorely disapointed.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


