Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
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: Bag the Turing test (was: Penrose and Searle)
Message-ID: <D0Er7K.5Ku@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <jqbD02pHI.EF5@netcom.com> <D0747A.9p1@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbD0DF70.2KJ@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 21:18:55 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <jqbD0DF70.2KJ@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <D0747A.9p1@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <jqbD02pHI.EF5@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>
>>>Everything I know about you and almost else on the net has been obtained
>>>solely by examining your texts.
>>
>>Textual evidence is important, but not the whole story.  From what you
>>write, and from what I know about computers and AI and the liklihood
>>of aliens or dogs posting net articles, I conclude that you're a
>>human.  And then there are many things I know about humans, and hence
>>about you, that were not obtained by examining your texts.
>
>There is nothing that you know about me that was not derived from my texts.

Yes there is, as I said above.

>What you know about the subjects I write about is not about me; it does not
>distinguish between me and anyone or anything else. 

I said nothing about the subjects you write about.

> What you know about
>the probability of me being human is not about me, because it does not
>distinguish between me and anything else. 

Since I can conclude you're human, I can go on to conclude you have
various properties that humans have.  That other humans have the same
properties does not stop them from being properties of you as well.

> By your argument, you will conclude
>that any intelligent program is actually a human because it is probably
>a human.  

If one's on the net now, I will indeed make that mistake.  But since
when is perfection required?

>All you have really stated here is that any set of texts that
>sufficiently reference those things that you know about humans will convince
>you that the author is human, which is, after all, what the TT is about.

At present, they will convince me the author is human.  When TT-passing
dogs, aliens, or programs come alone, then that evidence will no longer
suffice to show something is human.

-- jd
