Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!Gloger.es@XEROX.ARPA From: Gloger.es@XEROX.ARPA Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. people Message-ID: <284@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Jul-84 05:26:00 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.284 Posted: Thu Jul 19 05:26:00 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 01:59:58 EDT Lines: 38 Someone (I no longer have any record of who) apparently said: >> 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. To which Dave Seaman replied: > 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? Implicit in the first quote is the answer to the second. We cannot (absolutely) decide that anyone understands anything, i.e. that understanding exists, since "understanding" as used here is not a scientific observable. We can, if we wish, observe the observables, like test passing. And we can choose to infer from them the existence of a causative agency for them, like "understanding" for test passing. But this inference is true only to the extent that we can observe the agency; and it is valid only to the extent that from it we can deduce other, observably true and useful facts. If you're willing for "understanding" to mean some observable thing, like passing of some tests or other, then you can decide if someone "understands" something, i.e. if "understanding" exists. Otherwise, you can't absolutely decide where, when, or how much understanding exists or doesn't exist. And ditto the entire preceding discussion with the buzzword "understanding" replaced by "intelligence." And again, replaced by "luck." And again, by "soul." And again, by "god." (Credit for the basis of much of my argument is due to Prof. Andrew J. Galambos.) Paul Gloger