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!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!uhog.mit.edu!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!uunet!rosevax!reddwarf!grante
From: grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <1994Nov30.165636.20074@rosevax.rosemount.com>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Sender: news@rosevax.rosemount.com (Rosevax USENET News auto-admin account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: reddwarf
Organization: Fisher-Rosemount, Rosemount Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <CzFqn2.92t@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3b5d05$d2o@news-rocq.inria.fr> <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D01FA6.DuK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 16:56:36 GMT
Lines: 32
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96692 comp.ai.philosophy:22902 sci.philosophy.meta:15151

Jeff Dalton (jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk) wrote:

: I used to think the TT was right, BTW.  I even wrote a paper
: defending it when I was a student.  Although I think Searle's
: arguments are flawed, I nonetheless find that they help suggest that
: the TT is flawed as well.  If you want to show that "the system
: understands", you need more than "it passes the TT, therefore it
: understands".

OK.  What more, exactly, do you need?

If you can't tell the difference between talking to a person (whom, we
presume, "understands" the conversation) and an AI program, then how
are you going to differentiate between the two?

Are you claiming that the two are different but indistinguishable?
How about the claim that two protons are different regardless of the
fact that there is no way to tell one from the other?

Let's assume that I "understand" a conversation when I have one.  Can
I claim that I understand, that I am conscious, but you are not?

Remember you can't use the justification that a third person can
converse with both of us, and can't tell which one of us "understands"
and which one doesn't.  If you want to show that "you understand" you
need more.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I feel like I am
Rosemount Inc.                                |sharing a ``CORN-DOG'' with
                                              |NIKITA KHRUSCHEV..
grante@rosemount.com                          |
