Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!bingvaxu!cjoslyn From: cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Late thoughts on T Test, rooms, and functions Message-ID: <2762@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> Date: 7 Jan 90 06:24:02 GMT Reply-To: cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY Lines: 30 Referring to the Sci. Am. articles, am I correct in identifying a serious problem w/the computationalist assumption that brains calculate functions? Functions are many-one, and implemented by deterministic algorithms. No animal behavior, let alone human behavior resulting from thought, is strictly deterministic. How can we avoid error if we assume minds calculate functions? Do we know that humans (some, most, all) pass the Turing Test? Why is the T Test characterized as being wholy sufficient for ascertaining intelligence (i.e. passing = intelligence, failing = non-intelligence)? Like statistical tests, why isn't passing a T Test merely *evidence for* intelligence? In problems of induction, no finite amount of evidence is sufficient to make the inference, rather refusing to make the inference becomes sillier and sillier. Similarly, as we give harder and harder T Tests (and the system passes) it becomes more difficult to deny it's intelligence, although still impossible to affirm it. The Chinese room is intended as a limitting example, but like all good philosophical (ideal) examples, is impossible to construct. What is the significance of something really not being intelligence yet for all the observations we can possibly make on it it appears to be intelligent (e.g. Searle's room)? Isn't the query "is it *really* intelligent" vacuous under such conditions, or at least undecidable? -- O-------------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large, cjoslyn@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton NY 13901, USA V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .