X-Message-Number: 4329 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 20:49:37 -0700 From: John K Clark <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS The Turing Test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In #4320 Wrote: >I merely say that, until we know the nature of feeling and >consciousness in mammals, we cannot ASSUME that inorganic >computers--intelligent or not--can ever be conscious. I merely say that, unless you ASSUME that the Turing Test is true you will never have a theory of consciousness, at least not one you could place the slightest confidence in. >John himself admits that the Turing Test is not infallible. >But if there were a genuine tautology,the TT WOULD be infallible. How do you figure that? All TRUE mathematical equations are also tautologies but that doesn't mean their truth is immediately obvious. It may take a lot of study before you realize that A and B are exactly the same thing but once you do there is no doubt, IF A and B are the same THEN A = B. >"intelligence"--or degree of intelligence--is not >necessarily easy to judge. Exactly, and that's what I mean when I say the Turing Test is not perfect. You could say the most brilliant thing conceivable but if you say it in Chinese I will not be able to recognize it's intelligence. On the other hand, IF we take it as given that something is acting intelligent THEN that thing is intelligent, no ifs ands or buts. IF something acts intelligent THEN it is intelligent. I will admit that it's logically possible that it's still not conscious but there is no doubt about it's intelligence. >John has also contradicted himself by saying, on occasion, >that he knows intelligence when he sees it, even if he can't >define it; and on the other hand admitting that he has sometimes >been mistaken. If it's a contradiction to say that I sometimes make mistakes then I plead guilty to contradiction. >John seems to think the internals have so little likelihood >of being relevant or useful that we should ignore them, >and this I find VERY hard to understand If you just want to determine IF something is conscious then studying internal mechanisms is not important because behavior is the final arbiter. If something is acting as intelligent as you are but your theory of inner mechanisms says it's not conscious then your theory is bad or at least incomplete. If you want to determine WHY something is conscious then studying the inner mechanisms and their relationships to behavior is vital. >How do you test a theory of consciousness? There are many >possibilities. Many? I can only think of one, and for it to work an assumption must be made. >One of the most obvious is to look for correlations between >a human subject's reported feelings And that's the assumption, "REPORTED" feelings. You observe that the nerves in his mouth stimulate the muscles in his tongue to make a noise that to you sounds similar to "I am happy" or "I am sad". The trouble is, you take it as a given that if he's made of meat he is telling the truth, but if he's made of silicon and reports the exact same thing he is lying, but that's just what your experiment is trying to prove and can not be a given. >in an experimental situation and his concurrent physiology >or brain states as determined by EEG-type or NMR-type (or >something better) scans; then you use one to predict >the other and see how well it works. I think you've outlined a very sound procedure for studying conscious, It's just how I would do it, and it's pivotal assumption is, of course, that the Turing Test works. >But if we are on Cryonet, we are probably more alike than >different, and we share many goals. ABSOLUTELY! Our philosophical differences are tiny and our goals nearly identical compared with the average man on the street. I'd also like to say that when somebody , like Mr. Ettinger debates a point with intelligence and spirit, my regard for him only increases. Michael Riskin <> Wrote: >behaviour is not the same as being. Maybe not, but behavior is the only thing we can study, the rest is religion. Was Albert Einstein intelligent or did he just act intelligent? Suppose I examined an X ray of Einstein's head and used a theory of intelligence and consciousness I dreamed up to interpret it. I state that although Einstein wrote, talked and acted brilliantly, REALLY, he was an idiot. There are 2 possible conclusions you could draw. 1) My theory is correct and Einstein should have been committed to a home for the feeble minded. 2) My theory is utter garbage and I should be committed to a home for the feeble minded. I have a hunch that you would consider #2 the more likely possibility. >Obviously part of the problem is having an agreed upon >definition of intelligence. A very small part of the problem. I've never seen a good definition of intelligence and don't expect to see one anytime soon, but the concept is not nonsense. We all make judgments every day about who is very intelligent and who is not. All I ask is that you play by the same rules when judging a machine. >Does intelligence mean choices? Free will? Or is that irrelevant? I don't see any room for free will other than as a feeling of choice. We have this feeling because we don't understand ourselves very well so we don't know how we will react in certain circumstances . When we finely do react to the novel circumstance we conclude that we have made a "choice". I think the heart of the question of the Free Will can be found in the un- controversial statement "Everything, EVERYTHING, happens because of cause and effect OR it doesn't happen because of cause and effect". If it has a cause its deterministic. The cause may be pressure ,anger, gravity, reason, electromagnetism ,pain ,chemistry , love, ESP, influences from parallel worlds or devil demons from Pango Pango, it doesn't matter. The point is it has a cause. If something has no cause ,it is by definition, random. It has no plan, no rule , no method, no aim. This would not be a bad description of the opposite of intelligence or will. If you can find a pattern in it then its predictable, deterministic, and can't be random and must have a cause. This doesn't mean freedom is not important. We certainly have wishes, desires and emotions. The ability to do what you want to do, without interference, is what makes life worth living, it's just that there is a reason, a cause, that we want to do one thing and not another. >It is easier to discuss what something seems like than >what it really is. Yes, but you don't go far enough. In the final analysis, all we can do is remember what our senses picked up and spin theories to explain them. Even then we're assuming our memories are accurate. As to what really, really, "IS", I have no idea. >The former is therefore far more popular. Indeed, impossible tasks are seldom popular. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBL6Wn7H03wfSpid95AQFmBQTw0TPIcXLt21qIOi42nZPgWXKx3VkkyKHs 8qQ/eAdxRrbSdDUBhvARvAP4fkqhrRzTypJ2u53SUyIVFKRBAfLBWbzTmj797Q0u u0tLLGRkAJ7JqoS7zdiEoTY/wxV8F7kpqsSGy0asgZREtrmKYneFTg7t7beK2Qk8 r/sQABBEOA+j8Mo63+21oXDbrd54iwbZZYdDuEWIgNfiM9nUoVE= =yooB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4329