Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!eli.cs.yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!mcdermott-drew
From: mcdermott-drew@cs.yale.edu (Drew McDermott)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: If it does not pass TT it is not intelligent????
Keywords: TT, intelligence
Message-ID: <1991Jun20.141644.13144@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 20 Jun 91 14:16:44 GMT
References: <3727@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> <1991Jun19.050512.27413@news.media.mit.edu> <3737@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 32
Originator: dvm@aden.CS.Yale.Edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: aden.ai.cs.yale.edu

This is getting ridiculous ...

  In article <3737@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> jbaxter@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Jon Baxter) writes:
  >In article <1991Jun19.050512.27413@news.media.mit.edu>
  >minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
  >
  >> In article <3727@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> jbaxter@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Jon Baxter) writes:
  >>>Then what use is the Turing test? Sufficiently non-critical people think
  >>>that Eliza is intelligent, but anyone with computing knowledge would disagree.
  >>>Did Turing really mean for the people in his test to be non-critical?
  >>
  >> It isn't any use at all, so far as I know.  Turing was addressing the
  >> problem that people, because they have the word "intelligent", think
  >> there must be a thing that corresponds to it, and they want a
  >> definition that will help them recognize that thing.  So Turing,
  >> observing that they couldn't agree, suggested his "test" as a
  >> sufficent condition: if people couldn't distinguish, over the phone,
  >> between a person and computer X, then they could probably agree that
  >> the computer must be intelligent.
  >
  >So you are claiming that Turing, in devising his test, was defending the
  >view that the only reasonable definition of intelligence is a behavioural
  >one.
  >

PLEASE don't forget that Marvin started by pointing out

   *** completely correctly ***

that Turing was not trying to DEFINE intelligence.

                                             -- Drew McDermott