From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge Mon May 25 14:05:22 EDT 1992
Article 5649 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge
>From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Turing test and language
Message-ID: <1992May14.142304.15671@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Keywords: turing test language acquisition new yorker
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
References: <1992May12.205205.14441@bony1.bony.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 14:23:04 GMT
Lines: 14

In article <1992May12.205205.14441@bony1.bony.com> richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes:
>
>The implication is that the Turing test does not prove or disprove the
>intelligence of the entity tested.

No, the implication is that the Turing test does not disprove the intelligence
of the entity.  An entity which passes the Turing test is definitely
intelligent, by virtue of its ability to emulate human intelligence.  An
entity which does not pass the Turing test merely shows its inability to
emulate human intelligence in a certain instance.  A sleeping person will
not pass the Turing test, but that does not definitively indicate that he
is not intelligent.  It's possible that rocks are intelligent, but they
just don't feel like doing much, and therefore are unable to pass the test.
--scott


