From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxv!portegys
Newsgroups: net.followup
Title: Re: Refutation of the Turing test
Article-I.D.: ihuxv.401
Posted: Sun Nov 28 03:08:53 1982
Received: Sun Nov 28 06:27:15 1982

In reference to the recent note commenting on the counterexample to
the Turing test.

That note really hit me strangely, and after a while I figured out why.
I think that Searle's criticism of the Turing test is based on what he
sees as a weakness, but it is exactly that weakness that is its
strength.  By that I mean that Turing decided to sidestep all of the
subjective and intuitive definitions of intelligence and become a 
behaviorist for a while.  And in doing so he proposed a method of 
determining (defining?) intelligence based completely on external
measurements.  So if there is no way to tell the difference between
someone who "knows" chinese, and someone who can always respond in a 
way that can fool people, is there any sense in making a distinction?
Is there any distinction?
           Tom Portegys, BTL IH, (...ihuxv!portegys)