[ExI] The digital nature of brains
bbenzai at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 4 20:07:37 UTC 2010
<jameschoate at austin.rr.com> wrote:
---- Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well, we're talking about different things. I
> said "it was designed to..", and you replied "no it does
> not". Both of these can be true.
> This is a perfect example of my 'understanding inversion'
> First, we're not talking about different things. The Turing
> Test was suggested, not 'designed' as it's not a algorithm
> or mechanism. At best it's a heuristic. If you read Turing's
> papers and the period documentation the fundamental question
> is 'can the person tell the difference?'. If the answer is
> 'yes' the -pre-assumptive claim- is that some level of
> 'intelligence' has been reached in AI technology. Exactly
> what that level is, is never defined specifically by the
> original authors. The second and follow on generations of AI
> researchers have interpreted it to mean that AI has
> intelligence in the human sense. I would suggest, strongly,
> that this is a cultural 'taboo' that differentiates main
> stream from perceived cranks.
> They way you flip the meaning of 'can the person tell the
> difference' to 'machine to convince' are specious and moot.
> The important point is the human not being able to tell the
> difference. You say it is not meant to test the ability of
> humans, but it is the humans who -must be convinced-.
> I would say you're trying to massage the test to fit a
> preconceived cultural desire and not a real technical
> benchmark. It's about validating human emotion and not
> mechanical performance.
Um, I think 'understanding inversion' is right. I don't actually understand what you're trying to say.
More information about the extropy-chat