X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Fake-Sender: sibun@parc.xerox.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:52:43 PDT
Reply-To:     sibun@parc.xerox.com
From:         Penni Sibun <sibun@PARC.XEROX.COM>
Subject: Re: Turing
              10 Sep 1992 09:23:44 -0700
              <92Sep10.103357pdt.15609@alpha.xerox.com>

(ps 920913.2000)

   [From Rick Marken (920910.0900)]

   There was also an article in comp.robotics that delt with the Turing
   Test. There is apparently an article on the subject by S. Harnad

   I don't know if I'll waste my time reading it (NB-- Penni Sibun; I judge
   that I will learn nothing from it because I have read Harnad before. Might

that's ok; i don't usually read you since i know what you're going to
say.  however, you did pique my curiosity by mentioning the turing
test--even though i knew what you were going to say ;-}.

i think the fact that it still more or less bears in mind the turing
test is the only thing that really keeps ai coherent and
intellectually respectable.

   be a mistake but I'll take the risk). But I do think that the Turing
   Test is an EXCELLENT example of the behavioristic basis of AI (and
   cognitive science) etc. Harnad's contribution makes it even clearer -- he
   suggests a Total Turning Test meaning its not enough to get a simulation
   to answer questions like a real person -- you must also get it to
   behave in all ways like a real person -- ie -- brush teeth,
   play soccer, build model airplanes, etc.

have you read turing's article (recently)?  (i mean ``computing
machinery and intelligence,'' _mind_ LXI:236, Oct. 1950, pp433-460.)
the question turing considers is ``can machines think?''  the method
he proposes to answer it is to play a game in which an interrogator
communicates via teletype w/ both a human and a machine and has to
decide which is which.  if the interrogator can't decide, or decides
wrong, this suggests that the machine thinks (or the human doesn't).
who better to judge a thinker than a thinker?  what else to compare a
potential thinker to than a thinker?

turing based his test on what was apparently a sort of parlor game in
which the interrogator has to decide which is male and which is
female.  maybe the analogy will be helpful.  how do we know if someone
is male or female?  that's easy, right?  we're scientists!  we just
check the primary sexual characteristic: a male mammal has an x
chromosome and a y chromosome; a female has two xs.  (of course, not
always: some people are xyy, some are xxy, and maybe other interesting
combinations.)  what?  you've never checked anyone's chromosomes?
then how do you *know*??  well, there are the secondary sexual
characteristics, having to do w/ shape of genitalia, distribution of
body hair, subcutaneous fat, etc..  but what if you can't see enough
of these to make a judgement or it would be rude to ask?  what if in
this particular person they're ambiguous, or the person is actually a
hermaphrodite?  what if the secondary sexual characteristics are
convincing, but the person is a transsexual, and thus has 2ary
characteristics that don't match the primary ones?  gosh, it's a
toughie, isn't it?  WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY'S SEX IS!!

this hasn't been keeping you up at nights?  why not?  you say you know
the sex of everyone you deal with?  even though you don't know their
chromosomes?  howzat??  you mean you base it on their behavior--how
they dress and walk and talk and name themselves and interact with
you?  that's pretty dicey don't you think?  here everyone is walking
around and applying the sex test--based on ``superficial''
characteristics, w/o looking inside for the true facts--and sometimes
they are WRONG--if you go by the facts of the chromosomes.

as it happens, we don't go around worrying about our ability to tell
what sex others are.  occasionally we make mistakes and are
embarassed.  but we usually decide w/ complete confidence that someone
is female or male.  it is this *judgement* of someone's sex, based on
our perceptions of them, that constitutes what is female or male.  our
judgements are surely highly correlated w/ what a check of the
chromosomes would tell us, but the judgements aren't determined by the
chromosomes, and they don't always match.  but i think most people
would trust their judgements, w/o giving it a thought.

if *sex* is decided in such a ``superficial'' way, then why not the
ability to think?

cheers.

				--penni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU