From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Thu Apr 30 15:22:07 EDT 1992
Article 5201 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence, awareness, and esthetics
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.221135.20165@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 21 Apr 92 22:11:35 GMT
References: <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 61

In article <1992Apr20.191345.27706@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>The test, as usually loosely formulated, does not distinguish between
>being able to speak and having something to say.
>
As the saying goes - You can fool some of the people some of the time,
you can fool a few people all of the time, but you CANNOT fool all
of the people all of the time. That is what the Turing test is
based on, not some fast and loose definition. I am sorry to say
that the turing test does distinguish between just speaking 
grammatically correct sentences mindlessly, and actually speaking
about something. (otherwise ELIZA would have been considered
as passing the Turing test!)
	Listen, I have never produced a work of art in
my life that was oohed and ahhed at! Does that make me
unintelligent???

If on the other hand computers were programmed to produce
music, then you would consider that awareness? Utter BS!
No, awareness requires a demonstration of that awareness,
and only the Turing test is available to demonstrate to
a high degree the awareness exhibited.
Humans have allways been doing this! Why do they
test children in school, why do they test musicians
before hiring them? Awareness must be demonstrated!
>Until very recently only human beings were capable of either, excepting
>the talk of parrots and the recordings of human speech for the moment.
>However, we now have machines capable of producing spoken or written, 
>syntactically
>adequate sentences for hours on end, and the prospects are bright - or
>perilous, depending upon one's orientation - that such automatic speech,
>suitably enriched with clever borrowings from a human interlocutor, can
>fool some innocent or another into thinking he is talking to an
>unusually coy and inebriated fellow mortal, when in fact he is only
>interacting with the equivalent of an elaborate jukebox under computer 
>control.
>
>We speak haughtily of never being fooled ourselves: *we* are so much more
>clever and sophisticated.
>
>The arguments pro and con the Turing test are moot for me, as I know that
>it would take an exposure to a truly moving piece of art produced by a 
>computer - a symphony equal to one of Borodin's, for example - before I could
>fully accept the awareness of a machine. Such acceptance would come as
>
>Regards, 
>       Heiner biesel@thrall.sim.es.com

I suggest you familiarize yourself with what the Turing test 
really means! I do not say this in a derogatory way, I really
mean to make yourself aware of how YOU use the Turing test
when you may be saying that it is your 'heart' recognizing
this or that. When people say it is their 'heart' they
usually mean something that is so ingrained through habit
that it needs no questioning. But this ingraining of
knowledge was hard-won through carefull Turing testing.

-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


