From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!unibwh.unibw-hamburg.de!unibwh!p_misiak Wed Sep 16 21:22:07 EDT 1992
Article 6816 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai:4221 comp.robotics:2119 comp.ai.philosophy:6816
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!unibwh.unibw-hamburg.de!unibwh!p_misiak
>From: p_misiak@unibwh.unibw-hamburg.de (Carlo Misiak)
Subject: Re: Turing Indistinguishability is a Scientific Criterion
In-Reply-To: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU's message of Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:01:21 GMT
Message-ID: <P_MISIAK.92Sep8135449@grafix.unibwh.unibw-hamburg.de>
Sender: news@unibw-hamburg.de
Organization: University of Federal Armed Forces Hamburg
References: <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:54:49 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <1992Sep6.200121.4383@Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:

   ...

   The only open questions are (1) whether there is more than one way to
   design a candidate to pass the TTT, and if so, (2) do we then need a
   stronger test, the TTTT (neuromolecular indistinguishability), to pick
   out the one with the mind? My guess is that the constraints on the TTT
   are tight enough, being roughly the same ones that guided the Blind
   Watchmaker who designed us (evolutionary adaptations -- survival and
   reproduction -- are largely performance matters; Darwinian selection
   can no more read minds than we can).

What about a TTTT that incorporates that what is depicted in Asimovs 
`Bicentennial Man' -- not that I do not agree with a mere TTT ...


--
Carlo Misiak

*** All that we C or Scheme is but a mind in the machine *** (remember POE) ***



