Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!decwrl!pagesat.net!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <D0F1qv.KH8@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <D03L02.J5B@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D0Cwn2.1t9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbD0DDvB.MHy@netcom.com> <D0Eqo9.5B0@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 01:06:28 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <D0Eqo9.5B0@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>>>Mark Rosenfelder presented a position which basically is the same as 
>>>>mine.
>>>
>>>Really?  I agree with most of what he said, but I often feel I
>>>disaagree with you.  (Not always, of course!)
>>
>>Could be a reading comprehension problem.
>
>Could be.  Does Mark Rosenfelder agree with Andrzej Pindor's view
>of the TT?  Perhaps he will say.

Well, if Andrzej basically agrees with me, I must basically agree with him.
I'm not sure what's hidden behind that "basically", however. 

I take it that he agrees with most of my comments about the TT's limitations;
I'd guess that we might differ on the following: would he want to *define* 
intelligence using the teletype TT? or using behavioral tests in general?  

I suspect we (and Turing) would agree that "intelligence" is outrageously
ill-defined.  Turing's notion is to replace the concept with the TT;
mine is to divide it into a set of more tractable concepts (memory, 
learning, etc.).
