Xref: utzoo sci.philosophy.tech:3742 comp.ai.philosophy:359
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!mtrans.engin.umich.edu!marky
From: marky@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, Strong AI, and Chinese Rooms
Message-ID: <1990Nov17.190028.25276@engin.umich.edu>
Date: 17 Nov 90 19:00:28 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.122329.15235@daimi.aau.dk> <2460@cod.NOSC.MIL> <1990Nov16.161134.2845@daimi.aau.dk>
Sender: news@engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Lines: 33

In article <1990Nov16.161134.2845@daimi.aau.dk> jufier@daimi.aau.dk (Svend Jules Fjerdingstad) writes:
>deichman@cod.NOSC.MIL (Shane D. Deichman) writes:
>
>>The Chinese Room argument points out some deficiencies in the Turing
>>Test -- deficiencies which call upon the observer to take a deeper,
>>more profound look at what is meant by "understanding" and "knowledge."
>>Svend disregards the subconsciousness associated with cognition and
>>lucidity, and therefore begs the question.
>
>If subconsciousness is a prerequisite for intelligence, if it plays a role
>in forming intelligent behaviour, then of course a computer system would have
>to possess subconsciousness, in order to pass the Turing test.
>
I think this is a very important point, one that is ignored in the Chinese
room argument.  The CR argument goes like this:

  IF the Turing test is correct,
  AND a machine of such-and-such a type passes it,
  THEN that machine is intelligent.

  BUT, that type of machine can't be intelligent
  (it doesn't have the "right stuff")
  THEREFORE, the Turing test is not correct.

Implicit in this argument is that the offending machine will pass the Turing
test (otherwise the implication is invalid).  

It is possible that the Turing test is valid, and yet no machine will ever
pass it.  It is possible that any machine that passes the TT will be totally
unlike anything we now consider to be a computer.  Nevertheless, this would
not invalidate the test itself.

...mark young