From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!forbis Wed Sep 16 21:23:13 EDT 1992
Article 6896 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!forbis
>From: forbis@carson.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Subject: On the implications of biology as to "functional equivalence"
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.222915.27885@u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
References: <1992Sep11.154029.14574@oracorp.com> <18tpp9INNjtb@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:29:15 GMT
Lines: 36

In article <18tpp9INNjtb@agate.berkeley.edu> william@moica.berkeley.edu (William E. Grosso) writes:
>I think the point my be that "biology" is a very strong piece
>of corroborating evidence that could sway the decision towards 
>the conclusion "my pen-pal is intelligent". Because, if an
>entity which is quite similar to me is writing me letters, I
>am predisposed to say that it is producing the letters in much
>the same way I would. E.g. by thinking.

Unless you know what constitutes "similar" you have no reason to claim
similarity.  

Take almost any two randomly chosen computer programs.  It is highly
unlikely that they are functionally equivalent even though there is
nothing beyond their functional organization to indicate so.  One cannot
look at the computer running these programs and say they are functionally
equivalent and yet that seems to be what you wish to do by appealing to
"biology".

>Whereas I might not have a similar insight into how a dis-similar
>entity produces its letters and therefore might not be so hasty
>in crediting said entity with intelligence.

And yet two totally dissimilar computers may run two distinct object
codes and produce functionally equivalent results.

>Having said the above, let me say that I think it is flawed.
>It gives me another method to detect intelligence (e.g 
>through the argument "I am intelligent. That being is functionally
>equivalent to me. therefore that being is intelligent"). It does
>bot invalidate TT.

I think you are too liberal in judging "functionally equivalent".

>Bill Grosso

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu


