Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!entropy!cda
From: cda@entropy.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
Message-ID: <1446@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 13:13:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: jade.1446
Posted: Mon Oct 13 13:13:35 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Oct-86 07:39:44 EDT
References: <158@mind.UUCP> <150@cwrudg.UUCP> <160@mind.UUCP> <2495@utai.UUCP> <167@mind.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: cda@entropy.berkeley.edu (Charlotte Allen)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 19
Xref: watmath net.ai:3769 net.cog-eng:769

In article <167@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
	<as one approaches the
	<asymptotic Total Turing Test, any objective aspect of brain
	<"performance" that anyone believes is relevant -- reaction time,
	<effects of damage, effects of chemicals -- is legitimate performance
	<data too, including microperformance (like pupillary dilation,
	<heart-rate and perhaps even synactic transmission). 

Does this mean that in order to successfully pass the Total Turing Test,
a robot will have to be able to get high on drugs?  Does this imply that the
ability of the brain to respond to drugs is an integral component of
intelligence?  What will Ron, Nancy, and the DOD think of this idea?

Turing said that the way to give a robot free will was to incorporate
sufficient randomness into its actions, which I'm sure the DOD won't like
either.

It seems that intelligence is not exactly the quality our government is
trying to achieve in its AI hard and software.