Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!kth.se!sunic!mcsun!corton!inria!seti!nuri!ziane
From: ziane@nuri.inria.fr (ziane mikal @)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea
Message-ID: <2200@seti.inria.fr>
Date: 14 May 91 18:10:22 GMT
References: <1991May13.133711.102@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: news@seti.inria.fr
Organization: INRIA Rocquencourt,Le Chesnay, France.
Lines: 28


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

It is reasonable to assume that such a table can be constructed ?
What about questions that refer to the discussion itself ?
How can you know statically a result that can only be computed
dynamically ?

I have the same objection towards Searle's Chinese room argument.
It seems to me that the main problem comes from the assumption
that a static system could give acceptable answers.
If on the other hand the guy in the room is asked by the instructions
in English, to make computations, store results, etc, it is clearer
that the room itself (guy + instructions ...) understands Chinese.
It is even possible that the necessary computations are so complex
that they make the guy in the room learn Chinese !

Mikal Ziane (Mikal.Ziane@nuri.inria.fr)