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!torn!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz
From: oz@nexus.yorku.ca (ozan s. yigit)
Subject: Re: tt, comp.ai.phil etc...
In-Reply-To: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of Mon, 28 Nov 1994 19:20:52 GMT
Message-ID: <OZ.94Nov30011838@nexus.yorku.ca>
Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: The Electric Skillet
References: <OZ.94Nov18233146@nexus.yorku.ca> <CzqIqG.2AM@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
	<OZ.94Nov27201942@nexus.yorku.ca> <CzzsEs.Dwr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 06:18:38 GMT
Lines: 74
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96659 comp.ai.philosophy:22880 sci.philosophy.meta:15141

Jeff Dalton [on "fierce" defence of TT]:

   Then you shouldn't have much trouble finding some cases, then.
   I've been in several TT exchanges here, and there must be some
   others as well.

various lengthy [and often confused] exchanges on TT does not make
a "fierce defence of TT", just like a few blustery zeleny articles does
not make "an extraordinary attack on AI" and various McCullough articles
are not equivalent to "the functionalist manifesto" of the newsgroup etc
etc ad nauseam. such broad brushstrokes are demagoguery. 

   BTW, much of the "giant table lookup machine" arguments are fairly
   directly related to the TT, as are a number of points in the "rocks
   and FSAs" dispute.  Moravec and McCullough's mapping arguments also
   support the TT.

the reason giant table lookup machines are related to TT because they
originate from the CR, which uses TT as a prop. the actual discussion is
over structure, not the prop. I cannot tell how you came up with the idea
that Moravec and McCullough's "mapping" arguments support TT so maybe you
can expand on that. Suppose their arguments indeed support TT: have you
refuted them? if not, why not? what does that tell you?

why are you /still/ in this meta-discussion anyway? if you are so damn
annoyed by TT, kill it once and for all. for example, write up a dialogue
that contains various refutations, and post it regularly so that you can
make sure noone is so silly as to talk about it ever again. put up.

   I can recall two, very brief, remarks against the TT by a "pro-ai"
   poster.

it is a long article by Drew McDermott, titled "Red Herring Turing Test".
he was objecting to what you are doing by implication. I can send you the
whole thing if you wish. here is a fragment:

|  I point all this out because it is often assumed that to seek
|  computational theories of thought, the kind AI researchers look for,
|  requires adopting the Turing Test as a criterion for intelligence, or
|  even the only criterion.  Often in the midst of a discussion about
|  such issues, I find the Turing Test suddenly glued to me like fly
|  paper, and I am unable to shake it off.  It is not as if I have been
|  forced to adopt it by the logic of my position, but that it has been
|  handed to me casually, almost as a favor by whoever I am arguing with.
|  ``You espouse computationalism?  Then you won't want to be without
|  this handy accessory, Turing's Test.''  Flail as I may to get rid of
|  this unwelcome visitor, it stays glued, and the discussion
|  degenerates.


   >Daniel Dennett, "Can machines think?"  in (M. Shafto, ed) _How We Know_.
   >Harper & Row, 1985.

   But not in his own books (which I happen to have all of, while
   lacking the one you suggest)?

strongly related article is "Reflections: instrumentalism reconsidered"
in his "Intentional Stance" [1]. 

   >   >give some real references to the literature. 
   >
   >   Maybe I'll try to start noting them.
   >
   >that would be appreciated.

   I hope so.

i meant it.

oz
---
[1] Daniel C. Dennett
    The Intentional Stance
    MIT Press, 1987
