Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!sfleming
From: sfleming@cs.strath.ac.uk (Stewart T Fleming IE87)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Hayes vs. Searle
Message-ID: <3996@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Jun 90 11:21:49 GMT
References: <16875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2629@skye.ed.ac.uk> <13772@venera.isi.edu> <2703@skye.ed.ac.uk> <3192@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: sfleming@cs.strath.ac.uk
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
Lines: 30

In article <3192@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin) writes:
>
>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.

Absolutely !  The TT is a test of our perceptions of intelligence,
not of intelligence itself (whatever that may be).

>Aparently, Turings definition of "intelligence" or "understanding"
>relates to its actions, not the processes it engages in to produce
>what looks like "understanding".

Again, agreed.  What happens if you ask the machine a question to which
it cannot reply, simply because it has never encountered (experienced)
the material relating to the question.  Is the machine less intelligent
simply because it does not have a particular piece of knowledge ?
The intelligent aspect of the machine is the response it gives
("I don't know"..."Never heard of it"..."Say what ?") in response to
the question.

Stewart
>
>- Jim Ruehlin


-- 
4th Year Information Engineering, University Of Strathclyde, Scotland.
Dick Turpin Memorial Maternity Hospital : "Stand And Deliver".