Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!m2xenix!legion!steven From: steven@legion.rain.com (steven furber) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea Message-ID: Date: 14 May 91 01:57:05 GMT References: Organization: legion antipublic system Lines: 22 jj@medulla.cis.ohio-state.edu (John Josephson) writes: > It is unreasonable to think that the Turing test is infallible. That > is, in general the best explanation that something (upon rigourous and > demanding testing) appears to be intelligent, is that it is, indeed, > intelligent. The appearance of intelligence is good evidence for it's > presence, the more evidence, the more that efforts to trip it up have > failed. I have only read about the Turing test in cognitive science and linguistics books. Something I have been wondering is if the test is to prove intelligence from the point of view of a particular species (or type of being). The test requires use of language and linguistic knowledge. Does it necessarily require that some particular language be used? Although we have not encountered extraterrestrias, there is very little reason (from what I have read and can `see') to believe that non-humans communicate with the same system we use. If we find an species that does not communicate in the same way that we do and communicate in a language we know, is that species necessarily unintelligent? Like I said, my knowledge of the Turing test is limited.