Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang,alt.cyberspace,alt.net-scandal,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
From: ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk (Oliver Sparrow)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!peernews.demon.co.uk!chatham.demon.co.uk!ohgs
Subject: Re: Eliza (was Re: Are there non-humans lurking on Internet/Usenet?)
References: <mtm4.568.01C182F4@rsvl.unisys.com> <vlsi_libD3nBn4.ILH@netcom.com> <3h8ua5$iqg@news.bu.edu> <792232739snz@chatham.demon.co.uk> <jqbD3pLos.LHA@netcom.com>
Organization: Royal Institute of International Affairs
Reply-To: ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 38
X-Posting-Host: chatham.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 09:05:53 +0000
Message-ID: <792407153snz@chatham.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.nat-lang:2858 comp.ai:27327 comp.ai.philosophy:25412


In article <jqbD3pLos.LHA@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com "Jim Balter" writes:

 > Really, Oliver, has anyone ever concluded that the empty chair was more likely
 > to contain a human being than some other chair that *did* contain a human
 > being?  

If that's how you define the test, then no. But a social anthropologist would
be less convinced by remarks by any one individual that the Spirit of Oola (or 
a human) was to be detected in the responses coming from inside the chinese 
womb - whoops, the terminal - than that the behaviour of humans, in general, 
was modified by the presence of a terminal in ways which were consistent with 
the machine being a means by which to bring an additional human presence into 
the group. In other words, an anthropologist would see the telephone as passing 
the Turing test and the TV as not passing it (justifiably, but on other 
grounds) and the computer, not at all. The latter would be true not so much 
because of what the machine did as the social constriants of the situation in 
which, typically, machines are expected to interact. Part numbers and malfs, 
elaborate discussions as to the relative position of the Red Enemy Jet and the 
Grenn Friendly Missile are not likley to fool anyone except the subset of 
people who regard such conversations as normal and fulfilling.

 > I (have come to) expect better of you.
 
Charmed, I'm sure: thank'ee Zur, thank'ee.

 > All the chair tells us is that it can be helpful, when fantasizing, to have
 > a physical point of focus for the fantasy.  It tells us nothing of relevance
 > to c.a.p.

True; but if a chair can evoke behaviour which is richer than the broadest 
response tha tyou can get from a machine, then chairs (embedded in 
circumstance) score higher on the TT than machines embedded in circumstance.

_________________________________________________

  Oliver Sparrow
  ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk
