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: <D03L02.J5B@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
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 20:31:14 GMT
Lines: 50
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96706 comp.ai.philosophy:22920 sci.philosophy.meta:15160

In article <D01FA6.DuK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>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.
>
>Andrzej -- can I tell Ozan Yigit that you defend the TT?  From this,
>but more from other articles, it seems to me that you do.
>
Depending what you mean by "defending". In a sense - yes. However, it seems
to me that you are trying to box me into a silly position which I do not
hold. Mark Rosenfelder presented a position which basically is the same as 
mine.

>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".
>
When you say "Person X understands Y" you in fact define "understand" as
passing a sort of a TT by X concerning problem Y, don't you? Or do you "need
more"? A professor passes his students on basis of a sort of TT too, right?

>It may be that we will eventually establish that the TT is a
>reliable test.  But that's not the only possible outcome.
>
Considering the vague notion of "understanding" we have now, basically based
on passing sort of a TT, TT is good as it is. If we at some point require
something "more", it will mean that have additional criteria what it means 
to "understand" and hence that our notion will be different, as rightly
pointed out by Neil Rickert.

>-- jeff
>
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
