Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!umn.edu!peca!hougen
From: hougen@peca.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen)
Subject: Re: Robot Consciousness: PSYC Call for Book Reviewers
Message-ID: <Cwyxwz.G57@news.cis.umn.edu>
Summary: Turing test #1.
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: peca.cs.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
References: <36el11$15v@louis.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <36fdvk$6l@tadpole.fc.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 00:40:55 GMT
Lines: 45
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:20724 comp.robotics:13966

In article <36fdvk$6l@tadpole.fc.hp.com> allsop@fc.hp.com writes:
>
>> 2. My position accords well with the decline of behaviorism, and
>> specifically the apparent decline of the behavioristic Turing Test (see
>> Rey, 1986) and any number of the Turing-like Tests proposed in the
>> literature [NOTE #1]. Readers familiar only with Turing's original test
>> (Turing, 1964), and not with the variations that have been derived from
>> it, should imagine now an ever more stringent sequence of Turing-like
>> tests T1, T2, T3,..., the first member of which is the original
>> imitation game. How does the sequence arise? In T2 we might allow the
>> judge to observe the physical appearance of the contestants; in T3 we
>> might allow the judge to make requests concerning the sensorimotor
>> behavior of the contestants; in T4 we might allow the judge to take
>> skin samples; in T5 we might allow the judge to run brain scans, then
>> surgical probing, and so on. The point is that we can pretty much rest
>> assured that AI will gradually climb up the sequence; that soon we'll
>> have T.75,
>
>	What Selmer isn't telling us is that higher Turing-like tests
>start observing the actual creation processes since a Turing-like test
>somewhere around t.50(?) completely eliminates any ability to be
>molecularly distinguishable.  (maybe the Cartesian Dualists are still
>claiming the one created by procreation has been properly united with
>a soul?) t.75, of course, is where you observe the method of
>procreation.  The final only remaining distinguishable factor being:
>one is created in vitro and installed in the womb and the other is
>created via real go for it sex.  All other things like artificial
>wombs, genetic design other than sex selection, artificially
>accelerated nurturing of robots... (use a little imagination) are of
>course detected and ruled out in lessor T tests.  (I'm sure glad I'm
>not an in vitro person created and intentionally sex selected by man
>so that I can pass this test and no one can call me a robot or
>automata. ;)

I think perhaps you are confusing T.75 (i.e. T0.75 or T3/4) with T75.
(Why anyone gives a damn what the AI looks like or has for skin,
however, is beyond me.  Turing had it right.)

>	Brent Allsop

Dean Hougen

P.s.  You are a robot or an automaton.
--
"There's a little green man in my head."  - the Kinks
