From: Daniel Radetsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 19 2006 - 00:42:04 MST
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:10:31 -0500
micah glasser <email@example.com> wrote:
> consciousness is first person and subjective therefor there
> can be no objective, i.e verifiable, test for its existence.
That doesn't mean we can never have evidence that X is conscious.
> It does not follow that if a UTM can pass a Turing test then it is not
I don't think that anyone would ever hold that. Searle believes that UTMs are
not intelligent, but not because they can pass a Turing test. What is being
critiqued it whether or not passing the Turing test is sufficient for
> Turing's test still stands. Any machine that can pass a Turing test will
> have human level intelligence and human level intelligence of this kind is
> indistinguishable from the intelligence of a human being - whether that
> human being is a zombie or not.
If by intelligence you mean "ability to pass the Turing test," then I agree
with you. But what is at stake is human-like (not human-level) intelligence, or
understanding. It sounds like you're saying that passing the Turing Test is
sufficient for understanding. Whether or not you buy Searle's whole argument, I
think he knocks that claim down pretty definitively.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 22 2013 - 04:01:08 MDT