Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!spar!freeman
From: freeman@spar.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
Message-ID: <612@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>
Date: Sun, 26-Oct-86 22:58:54 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.612
Posted: Sun Oct 26 22:58:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Oct-86 05:42:49 EST
References: <158@mind.UUCP> <150@cwrudg.UUCP> <160@mind.UUCP> <2495@utai.UUCP> <602@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> <12@mind.UUCP>
Reply-To: freeman@spar.UUCP (Jay Freeman)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research - CASLAB
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.ai:3823 net.cog-eng:793

<*munch*>

In article <12@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>freeman@spar.UUCP (Jay Freeman) replies:
>
>>	Possibly a more interesting test [than the robotic version of
>>	the Total Turing Test] would be to give the computer
>>	direct control of the video bit map and let it synthesize an
>>	image of a human being.
>
> Manipulating digital "images" is still only symbol-manipulation. [...]

Very well, let's equip the robot with an active RF emitter so
it can jam the camera's electronics and impose whatever bit map it
wishes, whether the camera likes it or not.  Too silly?  Very well,
let's design a robot in the shape of a back projector, and let it
create internally whatever representation of a human being it wishes
the camera to see, and project it on its screen for the camera to
pick up.  Such a robot might do a tolerable job of interacting with
other parts of the "objective" world, using robot arms and whatnot
of more conventional design, so long as it kept them out of the
way of the camera.  Still too silly?  Very well, let's create a
vaguely anthropomorphic robot and equip its external surfaces with
a complete covering of smaller video displays, so that it can
achieve the minor details of human appearance by projection rather
than by mechanical motion.  (We can use a crude electronic jammer to
limit the amount of detail that the camera can see, if necessary.)
Well, maybe our model shop is good enough to do most of the details
of the robot convincingly, so we'll only have to project subtle
details of facial expression.  Maybe just the eyes.

Slightly more seriously, if you are going to admit the presence of
electronic or mechanical devices between the subject under test and
the human to be fooled, you must accept the possibility that the test
subject will be smart enough to detect their presence and exploit their
weaknesses.  Returning to a more facetious tone, consider a robot that
looks no more anthropomorphic than your vacuum cleaner, but that is
possessed of moderate manipulative abilities and a good visual perceptive
apparatus, and furthermore, has a Swiss Army knife.

Before the test commences, the robot sneakily rolls up to the
camera and removes the cover.  It locates the connections for the
external video output, and splices in a substitute connection to 
an external video source which it generates.  Then it replaces the
camera cover, so that everything looks normal.  And a test time,
the robot provides whatever image it wants the testers to see.

A dumb robot might have no choice but to look like a human being
in order to pass the test.  Why should a smart one be so constrained?


					-- Jay Freeman