Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcvax!diku!storm
From: storm@diku.UUCP (Kim Fabricius Storm)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Re: Turing
Message-ID: <2769@diku.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Nov-86 12:23:46 EST
Article-I.D.: diku.2769
Posted: Wed Nov  5 12:23:46 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Nov-86 22:01:17 EST
References: <2778@burdvax.UUCP> <779@scc.UUCP>
Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK
Lines: 36
Keywords: Looking for definition of

In article <779@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes:

>	Here is his famous paper from which the idea of a "Turing
>Test" is derived:

>                     THE IMITATION GAME
>                      A. M. Turing[1]

>I propose to consider the question,  'Can  machines  think?'
>This  should  begin  with  definitions of the meaning of the
>terms 'machine'  and  'think'.  
> ...
>                                But this is absurd.  Instead
>of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question
>by  another, which is closely related to it and is expressed
>in relatively unambiguous words.
> 
> ...

The use of Turing's test for deciding the answer to the question
"Can machines think?" was recently rejected by Peter Naur in an
article published in "BIT 26 (1986), pp. 175-187".  To quote
from the conclusion of the article: 

	(1) [...] the phrase "Can X think?" is [...] meaningless
	for any X.  (2) The restirctions imposed on [...] Turing's
	test [...] have no relation to any humanoid characteristics.
	(3) The awareness that each of us has of our fellow being's
	nature [...] cannot be reduced to, or expressed in terms
	of, any particular tests or games.

The article is highly recommended!

--
Kim F. Storm, storm@diku.UUCP  (seismo!mcvax!diku!storm)
Institute of Datalogy(=CS), U of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 1, DK-2100 OE