Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!cs012116 From: cs012116@cs.brown.edu (Mike Perkowitz) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea Message-ID: <75954@brunix.UUCP> Date: 16 May 91 16:27:53 GMT References: Sender: news@brunix.UUCP Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept. Lines: 26 In article , steven@legion.rain.com (steven furber) writes: |> |> 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? I think the assertion of the TT is simply that IF it passes the test, THEN it must be intelligent. This is in no way meant to imply that IF it's intelligent, THEN it will pass the test. Clearly, we have no way of forming an opinion one way or the other about an entity with whom we cannot communicate. Perhaps a loose interpretation of the spirit of TT would allow one to seek all sorts of other intelligent behaviors (how about a computer that knows American Sign Language, an extraterrestrial that plays a great game of chess, or a computer capable of designing a movie soundtrack that sets the perfect mood for each scene - aren't these all reasonable evidence of intelligence without fitting into a traditional TT or conception of "communication"?). Mike Perkowitz