Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: rereRe: The end of god
Message-ID: <jqbCyq07J.Fp0@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <383kau$5q2@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> <Harmon.672.00119FE3@psyvax.psy.utexas.edu> <jqbCyo3Lv.4sG@netcom.com> <1994Nov3.160532.10835@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 01:59:41 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <1994Nov3.160532.10835@unix.brighton.ac.uk>,
shute <mjs14@unix.brighton.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbCyo3Lv.4sG@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>But why are we interested in such a limited machine, other than to
>>misleadingly reinforce the claim that we can "see" things that machines (note
>>the amphiboly!) cannot?  There certainly are <M>s for machines that produce
>>exactly the same sorts of outputs for such sentences as humans do.
>
>As in:
>Q: What is the result of 2.4925 times 3.90158?
>A: ... um ... I think it is 9.72458815.
>
>when 'A' is a computer program which has been entered in the Turing Test?

I'd be more convinced by a program that said
" ... um ... let me get out my calculator ... it says 9.72458815".

or

"Well, that's about 2 and a half times 4 is a little less than ten."

AI's that can pass the TT need to be I enough to be able to behave in such
ways, just as we humans can act out the behavior of persons with lower levels
of skill than we have.  The idea that axiomatic/algorithmic systems somehow
"can't do this" entails a complete failure of imagination.
-- 
<J Q B>
