Newsgroups: alt.atheism,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!sparky!kwiudl.kwi.com!netcomsv!kiki.icd.teradyne.com!ganesh.ttd.teradyne.com!ttd.teradyne.com!news
From: martin@ttd.teradyne.com (Michael Martin)
Subject: Re: TT again (was Re: Is there a spiritual force etc.?)
Message-ID: <1994Oct04.224450.12838@ttd.teradyne.com>
Keywords: nn
Sender: news@ttd.teradyne.com (News Feed Account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: nori.ttd.teradyne.com
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
References: <1994Sep26.185332.28245@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu> <1994Sep29.145854.16970@ttd.teradyne.com> <1994Oct3.130943.3995@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 94 22:44:50 GMT
Lines:      31

In article <1994Oct3.130943.3995@unix.brighton.ac.uk> mjs14@unix.brighton.ac.uk (shute) writes:

>In article <1994Sep29.145854.16970@ttd.teradyne.com> martin@ttd.teradyne.com (Michael Martin) writes:
>>First you have to define conciousness and intelegence.  If the subject can
>>meet all criteria you have defined, then it meets your definition of 
>>conciousness.
>
>I don't see this at all.
>I've spent the last 38 years going around identifying intelligent and
>conscious things to talk to, and unintelligent and unconscious things
>to not bother talking to.
>
>But I most certainly do *not* have a definition of intelligence and/or
>consciousness to offer you.
>
>(And, no, not all the things that I talk to fall into the class "people",
>so you can't claim that that is the distinction that I use.  You probably
>could claim that I talk to all people/animals/plants/cars/rocks that
>seem to react to my initial attempts to communicate with them...
>but this would still not solve the Eliza vs 'tied up person' problem).

Maybe I'm not understanding your comments Malcolm, or maybe I'm not under-
stanting the Eliza problem.  All I said was that you first need to set criteria
that need to be met to determine if you are talking with an intelegent or 
concious being.  You already decide if things are intellegent or untintellegent.
Whether or not you can write it down in a definition is irrelevant.  And if
you find a computer/rock/animal that meets your definition, then for all 
practical purposes, that thing is intellegent or concious.

-mm
