Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad
From: harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
Message-ID: <4@mind.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Oct-86 22:30:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: mind.4
Posted: Sat Oct 18 22:30:24 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Oct-86 21:05:59 EDT
References: <158@mind.UUCP> <150@cwrudg.UUCP> <160@mind.UUCP> <2495@utai.UUCP> <1862@adobe.UUCP>
Organization: Cognitive Science, Princeton University
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.ai:3791 net.cog-eng:782
Summary: The Total Turing Test: Not all traits are relevant to our intuitive judgments about other minds.


greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) writes:

>	[C]oncocting a universal Turing test is sort of useless... There
>	have been countless monsters on TV...[with] varying degrees of
>	human-ness...Some...very difficult to detect as being non-human.
>	However, given enough time, we will eventually notice that they
>	don't sleep, or that they drink motor oil...

The objective of the turing test is to judge whether the candidate
has a mind, not whether it is human or drinks motor oil. We must
accordingly consult our intuitions as to what differences are and are
not relevant to such a judgment. [Higher animals, for example, have no
trouble at all passing (the animal version) of the turing test as far
as I'm concerned. Why should aliens, monsters or robots, if they have what
it takes in the relevant respects? As I have argued before, turing-testing
for relevant likeness is really our only way of contending with the
"other-minds" problem.]

>	[T]here are lots of human beings who would not pass the Turing
>	test [because of brain damage, etc.].

And some of them may not have minds. But we give them the benefit of
the doubt for humanitarian reasons anyway.

Stevan Harnad
(princeton!mind!harnad)