Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <38tqh6$5qk@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> <39oqc8$9gb@news-rocq.inria.fr> <CzFqn2.92t@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3b5d05$d2o@news-rocq.inria.fr>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 19:09:27 GMT
Lines: 29
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96527 comp.ai.philosophy:22761 sci.philosophy.meta:15083

In article <3b5d05$d2o@news-rocq.inria.fr>,
Mikal Ziane (Univ. Paris 5 and INRIA)  <ziane@monica.inria.fr> wrote:
......
>
>My point was precisely that I do not think TT is a very good definition
>of intelligence and I think that this is what CR suggests albeit clumsily.

It probably is not, but Turing thought that it was the best we could do and 
not much chaged since then. Or perhaps you have a better definition?
I can't see how CR suggests anything of the sorts. In fact, being methodolo-
gically wrong, it does not suggest anything.

>I don't agree that it is enough to say that CR does not show that
>the whole system does not understand.
>I think that CR shows that it is not so clear that a system passing TT
>is intelligent. This is of course not what Searle says but what I think
>CR suggests.
>I suspect that an improved version might clearly establish it.
>
What improved version?

>Mikal

Andrzej 
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
