From: Yusuf Larry (kly198@ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 30 2001 - 17:15:43 BST
>HARNAD:
> The only open questions are (1) whether there is more than one way to
> design a candidate to pass the TTT, and if so, (2) do we then need a
stronger
> test, the TTTT (neuromolecular indistinguishability), to pick out the one
with
> the mind? My guess is that the constraints on the TTT are tight enough...
Yusuf L:
Fair dues, but don't you think that we would require TTTT (neuromolecular
indistinguishability) or some way of (i hesitate to use the word) "prooving"
that a machine has a mind if we want to say it can think. Unless you believe
thinking/intelligence is computation and computation alone.
I believe that once we go past trying to implement the pen-pal T2, we start
to leave the realm of strictly computation and implementation independence.
Hence there therefore must be more than one way to design a candidate to
pass TTT.
>HARNAD:
> It is hence arbitrary and equivocal to focus only on pen-pal capacity; but
> Turing's basic intuition is still correct that the only available basis
for
> inferring a mind is Turing-indistinguishable performance capacity. For
TOTAL
> performance indistinguishability, however, one needs TOTAL, not partial,
> performance capacity, and that happens to call for all of our robotic
> performance capacities too: The Total Turing Test (TTT).
Firstly, in your opinion, will T3 be enough to pass the Total Turing Test?
Searle believes that what we are made of is fundamental to our intelligence,
if this happens to be the case, surely TTT can be passed by nothing short of
T4 ( where we start to get closer to what we are) or perhaps not till T5
(the full, exact, organic functional being).
Larry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 18:37:30 BST