From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!optima.UUCP Thu Feb 20 15:21:26 EST 1992
Article 3801 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!optima.UUCP
>From: curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Humongous table-lookup misapprehensions
Message-ID: <12856@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 17 Feb 92 17:18:10 GMT
References: <1992Feb16.223332.23142@ida.liu.se>
Sender: curtis@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 17

>From article <1992Feb16.223332.23142@ida.liu.se>, by c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge):
> 
>>Ok, then let's just skip right to the punchline.  Since the Turing Test
>>is too weak to serve as an operationalist definition of intelligence you
>>would advocate ---> [insert your alternative here].  
> 
> Oh no! I've been found out! Ummm...I ain't got no other test.
> Seriously, though, much as I would appreciate a non-cheatable test
> for intelligence, I doubt that one exists. 

This is somewhat confusing then because you are easily able to 
identify intelligence in other human beings and are just as easily 
able to identify a lack of intelligence in the humongous table 
lookup.  If you have no test (doesn't even have to be foolproof) 
for identification then how did you make the distinction?  

Curtis Dyreson


