Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ames!eos!shelby!csli!weyand From: weyand@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Weyand) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Turing Test Keywords: Strong AI, Turing test Message-ID: <16549@csli.Stanford.EDU> Date: 26 Nov 90 02:14:51 GMT References: <16197@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <3952@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <10297@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <1990Nov16.171041.14144@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <1990Nov19.192555.29337@cs.umn.edu> <1990Nov24.020506.23295@a Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. Lines: 24 In <1990Nov24.020506.23295@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> simonof@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Simonoff Robert 301 540 1864) writes: >Simple question: > Why does a supposedly intelligent have to be able to fool > a person into thinking it is another person to be intelligent? > I believe that is somewhat egocentric of our race, to believe > that our form of intelligence is the only kind possible. It doesn't. The point is if an agent can convince us that it has "human" intelligence then we might want to say that the agent is intelligent. Granted it's a difficult test, but remember Turing created the test with computers in mind not aliens. So having the test be based on human intelligence seems quite reasonable. Turing gave us an operational test for intelligence; if you can come up with another test then great. We define intelligence in terms of human intelligence so saying that it's egocentric to deny the existence of other forms of intelligence really doesn't make sense. What does it mean for there to be another form of intelligence. We certainly attribute some degree of intelligence to other species but that intelligence is not of another "form". Chris Weyand weyand@cs.uoregon.edu weyand@csli.stanford.edu