From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Apr  7 23:24:13 EDT 1992
Article 4926 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Rock/FSA -> Humongous LUT
Message-ID: <1992Apr4.150410.20327@oracorp.com>
Date: 4 Apr 92 15:04:10 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 28

clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:

(about rocks that can pass the Turing Test)

> Whatever means are used to determine the map from rock state to
> output, it would seem that the rock is just being used as an unusual
> sensor system.  In the above example the rock is a very indirect way
> of sensing the characters on the CRT. Thus, the rock is redundant and
> we return to the question of the humongous look-up table or other
> means for passing the Turing test.
> 
> The rock in front of the CRT does nothing. The rock plus lab plus
> humongous look-up table passes the Turing test. The intelligence is
> not solely in the rock.

I agree. The argument against the humongous lookup table being
intelligent revolved around the fact that it is not functionally
equivalent to a human brain (only behaviorally). However, if hooking
it up to a rock makes a system that is functionally equivalent to a
human brain, then surely the intelligence is mostly due to the table,
and not the rock.

Thus, in my opinion, functionalism supports, rather than refutes, the
idea that humongous lookup tables can be conscious.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


