Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!husc6!endor!mason
From: mason@endor.uucp (Richard Mason)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test: opinions on an idea
Message-ID: <6812@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 19 May 91 03:06:55 GMT
References: <1991May15.003627.23521@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991May15.055331.10631@cs.ubc.ca> <53693@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <14926@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: mason@endor.UUCP (Richard Mason)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Lines: 50


I think many people (here and elsewhere) read way too much into the
Turing test.

The Turing test is not a rigorous definition of intelligence.  Nor
is it a method of measuring intelligence (as if "intelligence" was a
thing you could objectively measure at all!).

What the Turing test is is a pragmatic argument, aimed at people who do
not think a non-human machine (*by virtue of being a non-human machine*)
can possess intelligence.  The line of argument goes:

(A) Essentially everyone believes, with an ultra-high level of certainty,
    that other human beings are conscious, intelligent entities.

(B) Almost everyone would assert that, whatever consciousness and
    intelligence are, they are not dependent upon physical appearance,
    physical capabilities, etc.  Almost everyone would therefore
    agree, upon reflection, that the decision that another human being
    is intelligent can be made without reference to what they look like,
    etc.

(C) THEREFORE, IF you cannot tell the difference between a human and a 
    non-human (e.g. a computer) without examining their physical
    appearance, THEN you must extend the same courtesy to each.
    That is, if you accept that the human is sentient, then you must also
    accept that the computer is sentient.  Since there was no detectable
    difference in the "evidence" that each one offered up, to do otherwise
    is to admit that your judgement is irrational and not based on
    evidence.


NOTE: There has been no attempt to DEFINE intelligence here; just an
observation that if you think humans are intelligent, you must think
entities indistinguishable from humans are also intelligent.
You may disagree with the conclusion (C) if you do not accept one of the
premises (A) or (B).  In particular, you may assert that your judgement of
intelligence *is* based on some physical feature (e.g. the presence of a
network of synapses.

It is foolish to talk about the time required for the Turing Test, or the
testing conditions, etc.  The Turing Test is not something you sit down and
take in two three-hour periods, with a fifteen-minute break, DO NOT BEGIN
UNTIL INSTRUCTED BY THE PROCTOR.

As long as YOU, as an individual, cannot distinguish between HAL 9000 and a
human being over the phone, AND you admit that everything important about
intelligence should be detectable over the phone, THEN it is only fair that
you give HAL 9000 the same status and recognition as you give a human
being.  That is all the Turing test means.