Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-i
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:ags
From: ags@pucc-i (Seaman)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. p - (nf)
Message-ID: <361@pucc-i>
Date: Fri, 13-Jul-84 10:43:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-i.361
Posted: Fri Jul 13 10:43:52 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jul-84 01:39:08 EDT
References: <290@gloria.UUCP>, <500001@ea.UUCP> <206@mit-athena.ARPA>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 13

>  If a program passes a test in calculus the best we can grant it is that
>  it can pass tests.  
>   . . .
>  We make the same mistaken assumption about humans--that is that because
>  you can pass a "test" you understand a subject.

Suppose the program writes a Ph.D. dissertation and passes its "orals"?
Then can we say it understands its field?  If not, then how can we decide
that anyone understands anything?
-- 

Dave Seaman			My hovercraft is no longer full of 
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags		eels (thanks to my confused cat).