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: <D03Lp9.L4H@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <38tqh6$5qk@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> <3b5d05$d2o@news-rocq.inria.fr> <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3bfphr$6sj@news-rocq.inria.fr>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 20:46:20 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96707 comp.ai.philosophy:22921 sci.philosophy.meta:15161

In article <3bfphr$6sj@news-rocq.inria.fr>,
Mikal Ziane (Univ. Paris 5 and INRIA)  <ziane@monica.inria.fr> wrote:
...........
>This is what I understood of CR so far. I have not looked at it deeply
>but there are two things which seemed rather clear.
>1. it certainly does not prove that machine cannot be intelligent

True. It does not prove or disprove anything. 
>2. it suggests (to me) that passing TT is not a perfect def. of intelligence.
>
Really? How does it do it? When you judge other people's intelligence, don't
you do it on the basis of some sort ot TT? Sure, this is not perfect, one
makes mistakes (someone you think at first intelligent turns out to be a fool,
who is only able to jugle a scientific jargon, without a clue what it means).
However, CR does not show anything.

>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
