From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Wed Feb 26 12:53:49 EST 1992
Article 3945 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <43808@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 92 15:03:31 GMT
References: <1992Feb22.163630.1686@oracorp.com>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 15

In article <1992Feb22.163630.1686@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>Jeff Dalton writes:
>> For frogs to be intelligent, many things would have to be false that
>> we think are true.
>
>...a frog that could pass the Turing Test would have to
>be a different kind of frog than the ones we know. 

	I don't intend this as a serious comment on this discussion,
but it is interesting to see how completely a three-year old child
believes in the intelligence of a talking frog.  There isn't a
moment's hesitation: they will talk back to the puppet (or whatever)
if they are not shy.  Without an adult's understanding of the
way frogs are, the leap to the assumption of intelligence on the
basis of behavior is unimpeded and swift.


