Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wdl1.wdl.fac.com!wdl1!mikeb From: mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Turing Test Message-ID: Date: 26 Nov 90 22:24:01 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> <1990Nov24.020506.232 Sender: root@wdl1.wdl.fac.com (SUPER USER) Organization: Ford Aerospace, Western Development Laboratories Lines: 26 In-Reply-To: simonof@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu's message of 24 Nov 90 02:05:06 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: wdl31 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. Bob Simonoff IMHO your question hits at to one of the key components of the debate that has been raging about the Turing test and the Chinese room -- i.e., can intelligence be defined on some objective scale or is it entirely subjective? And, if it is subjective, can it be defined in a way that it is at least common (i.e., objective) to humanity? Personally, I would like to believe that intelligence an objective concept that can be measured without regards to humanity. Clearly it was this type of (wishful thinking?) that led to the development of the IQ scale and other debatable subjects. However, I think it is very interesting that the only measure that has been somewhat agreed upon, the Turing Test, is completely subjective and could differ between individuals. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it -- does it make any noise? Or, to paraphrase, if an entity acts "intelligently", and there is no human there to note this fact, is it indeed intelligent? Mike Bender