Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea
Message-ID: <1991May14.031103.2624@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
References: <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 03:11:03 GMT
Lines: 34

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

>    I'd like to hear opinions on the following thought I had, about
>the Turing Test. Start off with a story. Suppose in X years, physics
>gets to such a point where very fast storage and retrieval of
>arbitrary amounts of information is easy (imagine some sort of
>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.

N. Block, "Psychologism and Behaviorism", Philosophical Review 90:5-43, 1981.

This is about precisely the scenario that you imagine.  A long, thorough,
and interesting article -- definitely good value.  Block draws the conclusion
that the TT is too behaviourist to serve as a sufficient criterion for
intelligence.  As an "in-principle" point, I find myself in somewhat
reluctant agreement -- reluctant because of the ridiculousness of the
scenario (we're talking about a lot of cubic light-years to store that 
information).  Perhaps the TT can be saved by imposing some very mild 
restriction on the kind of mechanisms that can is allowed -- e.g. that they
be "generative" (productive, systematic, etc) in some sense.

If you're at Tufts, talk to Dan Dennett (big Turing-Test fan) about this.
He hates the Block example (along with a few others, e.g. Hofstadter,
Cherniak) because of its implausibility, but I'm not sure that he has any
really good arguments against it.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."