Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!rutgers!uwvax!uwslh!lishka From: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (a) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories Message-ID: <150@uwslh.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Oct-86 16:53:49 EDT Article-I.D.: uwslh.150 Posted: Tue Oct 21 16:53:49 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Oct-86 06:29:12 EDT References: <158@mind.UUCP> <150@cwrudg.UUCP> <160@mind.UUCP> <2495@utai.UUCP> <1636@watdragon.UUCP> <5@mind.UUCP> Reply-To: lishka@uwslh.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison, State Hygiene Lab Lines: 69 In article <5@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: > >rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) replies: > >> I doubt that it is possible to test whether something has a mind, >> unless you provide a definition of what you believe a mind is. >> Turing's test wasn't a test for whether or not some artificial >> or natural entity had a mind. It was his prescription for an >> evaluation of intelligence. > >And what do you think "having intelligence" is? Turing's criterion >effectively made it: having performance capacity that is indistinguishable >from human performance capacity. And that's all "having a mind" >amounts to (by this objective criterion). There's no "definition" in >any of this, by the way. We'll have definitions AFTER we have the >functional answers about what sorts of devices can and cannot do what >sorts of things, and how and why. For the time being all you have is a >positive phenomenon -- having a mind, having intelligence -- and >an objective and intuitive criterion for inferring its presence in any >other case than one's own. (In your own case you presumable know what >it's like to have-a-mind/have-intelligence on subjective grounds.) > >Stevan Harnad How does one go about testing for something when one does not know what that something is? My basic problem with all this are the two keywords 'mind' and 'intelligence'. I don't think that what S. Harnad is talking about when referring to 'mind' and 'intelligence' are what I believe is the 'mind' and 'intelligence', and I presume others are having this problem (see first article above). I think a fair example is trying to 'test' for UFO's. How does one do this if (a) we don't know what they are and (b) we don't really know if they exist (is it the same thing with magnetic monpoles?). What are really testing for in the case of UFO's? I think this answer is a little more clear than for 'mind', because people generally seem to have an idea of what a UFO is (an Unidentified Flying Object). Therefore, the minute we come across something really strange that falls from the sky and can in no way be identified we label it a UFO (and then try to explain it somehow). However, until this happens (and whether this has already happened depends on what you believe) we can't test specifically for UFO's [at least from how I look at it]. How then does one test for 'mind' or 'intelligence'? These definitions are even less clear. Ask a particular scientist what he thinks is 'mind' and 'intelligence', and then ask another. Chances are that their definitions will be different. Now ask a Christian and a Buddhist. These answers will be even more different. However, I don't think any one will be more valid than the other. Now, if one is to define 'mind' before testing for it, then everyone will have a pretty good idea of what he was testing for. But if one refuses to define it, there are going to be a h*ll of a lot of arguments (as it seems there already have been in this discussion). The same works for intelligence. I honestly don't see how one can apply the Total Turing Test, because the minute one finds a fault, the test has failed. In fact, even if the person who created the 'robot' realizes somehow that his creation is different, then for me the test fails. But this has all been discussed before. However, trying to use 'intelligence' or having a 'mind' as one of the criteria for this test when one expects to arrive at a useful definition "along the way" seems to be sort of silly (from my point of view). I speak only for myself. I do think, though, that the above reasons have contributed to what has become more a fight of basic beliefs than anything else. I will also add my vote that this discussion move away from 'the Total Turing Test' and continue on to something a little less "talked into the dirt". Chris Lishka Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene [qualifier: nothing above reflects the views of my employers, although my pets may be in agreement with these views]