Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!crash!ncr-sd!se-sd!jim
From: jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Hayes vs. Searle
Message-ID: <3192@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 7 Jun 90 17:39:07 GMT
References: <16875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2629@skye.ed.ac.uk> <13772@venera.isi.edu> <2703@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 16
X-Local-Date: 7 Jun 90 10:39:07 PDT

In article <2703@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>  In a sense, what Searle has done is to
>puncture the Turing Test "if it types like it understands then it does
>understand" balloon.  His pot keeps boiling because people keep trying
>to reinflate the balloon with the system reply, the robot reply,
>various combinations of the two, and so on.

I think it's important to keep in mind what Turing really ment by the
Turing Test.  My understanding of what he was saying is not that the
computer IS intelligent, but that we must CONSIDER it intelligent because
we can't tell the difference between the human and computer.
Aparently, Turings definition of "intelligence" or "understanding"
relates to its actions, not the processes it engages in to produce
what looks like "understanding".

- Jim Ruehlin