From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Tue Mar 24 09:54:52 EST 1992
Article 4392 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: <1992Mar7.180909.10713@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Mar9.175416.8708@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar10.014527.16007@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Mar11.162413.15188@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 16:24:13 GMT

In article <1992Mar10.014527.16007@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>>I do believe that if the system produces intelligent behavior
>>>it IS intelligent!
>>
>>If you genuinely believe that you can describe the outputs of a randomly
>>behaving system as "intelligent," then we simply have no grounds for
>>discussion.
>>
>What do you mean by random?
>Do you believe that the atoms in your brain are random?
>Do you believe that anything is random?
>
>The key ($64K) question is does it pass the turing test?

No, the key question is whether or not the Turing Test is an adequate
test for intelligence.  To *define* intelligence by ability to pass the
Turing Test leaves the notion of intelligence empty.  Surely you
believe that there is something called "intelligence" (or "understanding")
which actually exists, independent of whether or not an entity which
actually possess such qualities passes the Turing Test? 

I am willing to grant that the Turing Test is an excellent practical screen
for finding entities which are intelligent.  However, *no one*, apart from
yourself, seems to believe that it is infallible.

- michael
 

>Now I am not a mathematician, but if a system solves
>a problem, is that system not equivalent to another
>system that goes about its solution in a different



