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!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <CzsHMy.B9n@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <39posv$mr0@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> <CzFr3J.990@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <CzH78F.4Eq@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <CzqHIB.1nA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 20:44:58 GMT
Lines: 71
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96288 comp.ai.philosophy:22599 sci.philosophy.meta:15008

In article <CzqHIB.1nA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <CzH78F.4Eq@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
............
>>As someone who defended the TT in this forum, let me once again stress
>>the rationale of this defence: better bird in hand than two in the bush.
>>If critics of TT proposed any alternative, there would be something to 
>>discuss. As it is, saying "there is _more_ to thinking/intelligence than
>>passing the TT" is meaningless if you can't say what this _more_ is. 
>>Whatever flaws we in the TT we can point out, it is the best we have.
>
>It's a rather small bird, given that we don't know how to construct
>artificial TT-passers.
>
It may be a small bird but those "two birds in the bush" are only suggested
by some people without any evidence. So, there may be no birds in the bush at
all and the choice is between a small bird in hand and two speculated birds
in the bush.
More specifically, although we do not know how to construct an artificial 
TT-passer, there is a broad consensus (on the basis of progress made so far)
that such passer may be constructed using extensions of existing technology.
Do you agree that it looks likely?

>Now, what is the argument for the TT?  That if we can't show it's
>wrong, we should treat it as right?  Why not say we don't yet know
>one way or the other?  After all, it's not like we're going have
>to TT-passers ready tomorrow.  Why the rush?  Why does it *matter*
>that we have this bird in the hand right now?
>
Certainly tomorrow we will not travel to a black hole to get a first hand
evidence of its existence and properties. Why to rush and speculate about them?
Argument about TT is meant to focus attention on the fact that (or whether)
the only criterion of intelligence (artificial or otherwise) is a sum of
responses of a system to external inputs (i.e. its behavior). Naturally 'sum'
is not meant to be literal sum.

>My position is not that there *is* more to thinking, intelligence,
>or whatever, BTW.  OTOH, it seems plausible to me that some aspects
>of mental life (or indeed whether there is any mental life) might
>depend on how the TT-passing behavior is accomplished.
>
Please specify what you mean by "mental life". Certainly internal states and
processes of the system have to have a specific (in some range) structure for
the system to be able to pass TT. Do you mean something else by "mental life"?

>What in the TT shows anything that passes it *must* have subjective
>experience, qualia, an internal dialogue, or other such aspects of
>human mental life?  Is this question out of bounds for some reason?
>
Do you mean that you would accept a Harnad's TTT-passer as conscious?
If this is not what you mean, then please say what more does _your_ behavior
show, which would prove that _you_ *must* have all of the above. Your question
is not out of bounds, it is just empty of content. How do you propose to
determine if Koko the gorilla (or a chimp) is conscious, other than checking
if it passes TTT? 
It seems to me that we do not disagree about the facts: present state of 
knowledge does not indicate a possibility of criteria for consciousnes other
then (T)TT. However, our ways part immediately after this: I think that it
may be possible that this is due to a nature of the phenomenon (consciousness)
and consequently no other criterion will be found. You, OTOH, are not yet
prepared to throw the towel in. Is the a roughly accurate assesment of our
disagreement?

>-- jeff


-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
