Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!icst-ecf.UUCP!cugini From: cugini@icst-ecf.UUCP.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.ai Subject: pique experience Message-ID: <8702100540.AA02402@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 3-Feb-87 07:15:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8702100540.AA02402 Posted: Tue Feb 3 07:15:00 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Feb-87 05:47:06 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: "CUGINI, JOHN" Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 18 Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa > Harnad: {iii} The Total Turing Test (a variant of my own devise, not > to be confused with the classical turing test -- see prior chapters > in these discussions) is the only relevant criterion that has so far > been proposed and defended. Similarities of appearance are obvious > nonstarters, including the "appearance" of the nervous system to > untutored inspection. Just a quick pout here - last December I posted a somewhat detailed defense of the "brain-as-criterion" position, since it seemed to be a major point of contention. (Again, the one with the labeled events A1, B1, etc.). No one has responded directly to this posting. I'm prepared to argue the brain-vs-TTT case on its merits, but it would be helpful if those who assert the TTT position would acknowledge the existence, if not the validity, of counter-arguments. John Cugini ------