Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!csus.edu!nic.csu.net!nic.csu.net!news
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea
Message-ID: <1991May13.140413.630@nic.csu.net>
From: sandberg@bart (Stephanie)
Date: 13 May 91 14:04:13 PST
Reply-To: sandberg@bart.sfsu.edu
References: <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: bart.sfsu.edu
Lines: 27

In article <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu> mlevin@jade.tufts.edu writes:

> ...
> hyperdimensional memory, or something). They then make an enormous
> 'game-tree' of all possible conversations in English (taking 
> into account randomizing elements, repeat questions,
> etc.), and make an idiot box that simply accepts inputs from an
> interrogator, and, by direct table look-up, spits out answers, which
> are good enough to pass the Turing Test. 
> 
> Mike Levin


What is missing here is the intentionality of the responses. It is our
intentions as humans, that predicts our actions. How are these actions 
chosen? What motivates our intentions? How do we represent this? (the
answers to these questions can be found in "Scripts, Plans Goals and 
Understanding" Schank and Ableson.) But mere conversation is boring,
it when a computer is able to play mind games with you, and it plays
the games based on it's own goals and intentions in life that makes it  
conscious.

Why should a computer use an infinte tree of representing every possible
conversational response, when that is not how humans do it? I'm sorry
I don't understand the reason behind this sort of solution. 

Stephanie Sandberg