From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:35:55 EST 1992
Article 4325 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Monkey Room
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <9203031955.AA11770@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Mar6.004252.1593@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.213755.17977@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 21:37:55 GMT

In article <1992Mar6.004252.1593@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <9203031955.AA11770@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> GUNTHER@WMAVM7.VNET.IBM.COM ("Mike Gunther") writes:
>>a Turing Test.  We open the room and find only a monkey, hitting
>>teletype keys at random.  It just so happens that the monkey's
>>keystrokes produced "intelligent" conversation up until the time the
>>room was opened.
>>
>>This thought-experiment seems to contradict several ideas-- the Turing
>>Test, behaviorism, functionalism, and the Systems Reply for starters.
>>Any comments?
>>
>This does not contradict anything.
>1) how likely is this to happen.
>2) It can be argued that up until the room was opened, the 
>monkey & teletype formed a system that (just by the random
>ordering of atoms) was intelligent! When the room was
>opened the system died!

This must be a meaning of the word "intelligent" of which I was previously
unfamiliar.

The "Monkey Room" example is merely meant to show that seemingly intelligent
behaviour can arise by random chance.  Certainly you don't *really*
believe that a system that produces random responses is intelligent?

> What is there that precludes that
>a bunch atoms will not come together (randomly) and
>form a complete human being, intact with memories and
>everything! Let us assume that he was your copy in
>every detail, now is he intelligent?

Sure.

>Same as the monkey argument!

Not at all, and I am amazed that you can't see the difference.
Take the case of someone with a multi-sided die that has all the characters
in English.  If the die just happened to produce a string of characters that
seemed like a conversation, would you be willing to say that the die was
actually "intelligent"?  I would hope not...

- michael




