From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:35:58 EST 1992
Article 4331 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: Turing Test: (was Monkey Room)
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Mar5.165203.383@aifh.ed.ac.uk> <1992Mar5.233543.28060@psych.toronto.edu> <18792@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.222505.25880@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 22:25:05 GMT

In article <18792@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>Many observers of this group would have supposed it impossible to find a
>topic which would beat the Chinese Room for the number of posters
>willing to expatiate at great length without having read the paper
>supposedly under "discussion", but the Turing Test is showing up as a
>very promising candidate.
>
>I suggest a break while everyone goes away to read Turing's paper.

...especially his response to "The Argument from Consciousness," where
he writes:

  "This argument appears to be a denial of the validity of our test.  
   According to the most extreme form of this view the only way by
   which one could be sure that a machine thinks is to *be* the
   machine and to feel oneself thinking."

Does this sound familiar?

(BTW, Searle denies it was his inspiration for the Chinese Room.)

- michael



