Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <D0Cvq3.1F2@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D01FA6.DuK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbD02xHw.27H@netcom.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 21:01:15 GMT
Lines: 66
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97213 comp.ai.philosophy:23184 sci.philosophy.meta:15315

In article <jqbD02xHw.27H@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <D01FA6.DuK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>>In article <3b5d05$d2o@news-rocq.inria.fr>,
>>>Mikal Ziane (Univ. Paris 5 and INRIA)  <ziane@monica.inria.fr> wrote:
>>>......
>>>>
>>>>My point was precisely that I do not think TT is a very good definition
>>>>of intelligence and I think that this is what CR suggests albeit clumsily.
>>>
>>>It probably is not, but Turing thought that it was the best we could do and 
>>>not much chaged since then. Or perhaps you have a better definition?
>>>I can't see how CR suggests anything of the sorts. In fact, being methodolo-
>>>gically wrong, it does not suggest anything.
>>
>>Andrzej -- can I tell Ozan Yigit that you defend the TT?  From this,
>>but more from other articles, it seems to me that you do.
>
>Is you omission of the word "fiercely" accidental, Jeff?

The history of my discussion with Oz is not what you seem to think.
Oz and I have been here before.  "Fierce" has come into it only once,
and only because I said "fiercely defended" in one article.  If I
can merely show the TT is defended, that's still a relevant thing
to show.  So I am addressing that as well as the question of the
defense's nature.  As for the nature, I don't regard fierceness
_per se_ as expecially important.  I think it's sill to try to
make everything depend on one word.

Anyway, the omission here is deliberate.

>Did you think no one would notice?  

I thought they might well notice.  I certainly expected Oz to.
I expected him to add this to the "TT is defended" pile and
not to the "fierce~ subpile.

> It looks mighty dang *conscious* to me, Jeff.  Andrzej's
>supposed "defense" here is about as tame as it gets ("[TT] probably is not
>[a very good definition of intelligence]").  His main point is that the CR is
>useless to suggest anything.  Way too many things follow from fallacies.

The CR has suggested certain things to some people.  In particular,
it's suggested that something might pass the TT without actually
understanding what it's saying.

The Robot Reply also suggests this, BTW.

>>It may be that we will eventually establish that the TT is a
>>reliable test.  But that's not the only possible outcome.
>
>We use it all the time.  

Perhaps you do.  I often decide a person is conscious just by
seeing them walking down the street.  I also decide some animals
are conscious.  It may be that some net exchanges I've been in
amount to a TT, but I've hardly ever been able to check whether
my conclusions about these net entities are correct or not.

>It's pretty danged reliable. 

But at present only humans pass it.  That's a rather narrow range
of examples to go on.

-- jd
