Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <D0EFJJ.Av@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: <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D01FA6.DuK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <1994Nov30.165636.20074@rosevax.rosemount.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 17:06:55 GMT
Lines: 49
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97297 comp.ai.philosophy:23259 sci.philosophy.meta:15346

In article <1994Nov30.165636.20074@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>Jeff Dalton (jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: I used to think the TT was right, BTW.  I even wrote a paper
>: defending it when I was a student.  Although I think Searle's
>: arguments are flawed, I nonetheless find that they help suggest that
>: the TT is flawed as well.  If you want to show that "the system
>: understands", you need more than "it passes the TT, therefore it
>: understands".
>
>OK.  What more, exactly, do you need?
>
>If you can't tell the difference between talking to a person (whom, we
>presume, "understands" the conversation) and an AI program, then how
>are you going to differentiate between the two?

Suppose we eventually figure out what kind of program corresponds
to human intelligence.  Perhaps we can distinguish between that
kind of program and the one the AI is using.  Perhaps we will also
know what kinds of program features correspond to consciousness,
etc.  OTOH, maybe  we won't.  After all, it may turn out that the
TT has no false positives.  But some work must be done in order to
show (by which I don't mean anything as strong as mathematical
proof) that the TT has this property.

>Are you claiming that the two are different but indistinguishable?
>How about the claim that two protons are different regardless of the
>fact that there is no way to tell one from the other?

Do you think all such cases must be decided the same way?  Probably
you do.  In any case, it's fairly common to think "a difference that
makes no difference is no difference".  But can there not be
differences you cannot detect?  Can you tell what I'm thinking 
right now?  Probably not.  But does that mean I wasn't thinking
anything?

>Let's assume that I "understand" a conversation when I have one.  Can
>I claim that I understand, that I am conscious, but you are not?

Well, you can *claim* it.

>Remember you can't use the justification that a third person can
>converse with both of us, and can't tell which one of us "understands"
>and which one doesn't.  If you want to show that "you understand" you
>need more.

Why should I have to do anything of the kind?

-- jeff
