Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!labrea!glacier!adobe!greid
From: greid@adobe.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
Message-ID: <1862@adobe.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Oct-86 15:35:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: adobe.1862
Posted: Fri Oct 17 15:35:51 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Oct-86 20:23:47 EDT
References: <158@mind.UUCP> <150@cwrudg.UUCP> <160@mind.UUCP> <2495@utai.UUCP> <167@mind.UUCP> <2552@utai.UUCP>
Reply-To: greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid)
Organization: Adobe Systems, Palo Alto
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.ai:3789 net.cog-eng:780

It seems to me that the idea of concocting a universal Turing test is sort
of useless.

Consider, for a moment, monsters.  There have been countless monsters on TV
and film that have had varying degrees of human-ness, and as we watch the
plot progress, we are sort of administering the Turing test.  Some of the
better aliens, like in "Blade Runner", are 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, or that they don't bleed when
they are cut (think of "Terminator" and surgery for a minute), and we start
to think of alternative explanations for the aberrances we have noticed.  If
we are watching TV, we figure it is a monster.  If we are walking down the
street and we see somebody get their arm cut off and they don't bleed, we
think *we* are crazy (or we suspect "special effects" and start looking for
the movie camera), because there is no other plausible explanation.

There are even human beings whom we question when one of our subconscious
"tests" fails--like language barriers, brain damage, etc.  If you think
about it, there are lots of human beings who would not pass the Turing test.

Let's forget about it.

Glenn Reid
Adobe Systems

Adobe claims no knowledge of anything in this message.