X-Message-Number: 4318
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 21:10:09 -0700
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS The Turing Test
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I've already said most of this to Mr. Ettinger in E mail but not on Cryonet.
In #4313 Wrote:
>If the interrogator was deceived--as could
>easily happen--then the Test was not sufficient.
As I've said the Turing Test is not perfect, if the testers are
stupid or only given a short time for testing, mistakes can
happen. I've met people, and I'm sure you have too, who at
first seem very intelligent but later you realize it's just an act
and they're really dumb as dirt. They can fool you for a while
but eventually the truth will come out.
>Extremist Turing Testers say that if a system acts
>[converses] intelligently, then it IS intelligent
Yes, except I don't see anything the slightest bit "extremist" about it.
As far as I'm concerned it's beyond dispute, it's not a premise,
it's not a conclusion, it's a tautology and unworthy of serious debate.
I disagree with but can respect the idea that a computer can
never be intelligent. To a lesser degree I can respect the idea
that a computer can be intelligent but not conscious, HOWEVER
the idea that something can act intelligent but not be
intelligent makes not one particle of sense. Einstein was not
intelligent he just acted intelligently, Hitler was not a bad
man he just acted badly ... this is madness.
>by [their] definition.
By ANY definition , if something acts intelligent it is
intelligent. If something is big then it's large, if something
is small then it's little, calling such statements platitudes
would be giving them too much credit. Definitions are not important,
A is always equal to A no mater what A is.
>My own guess is that feeling requires SOME degree of
>intelligence, since otherwise it would have no
>evolutionary advantage;it doesn't help to feel, if you
>don't know what to do about it.
Evolution found it much easier to come up with feeling than
intelligence, animals had strong emotions (that is, they BEHAVED
like they had strong emotions) long before they had anything
close to human intelligence. That's why I don't understand your
position that a computer might be intelligent but it will never
feel, considering nature's experience in building such things,
you could make a stronger case that a computer might be able to
feel but it will never be intelligent.
>intelligence (defined loosely as goal-directed,
>problem-solving capacity) COULD exist without feeling,
>as far as I can see.
Let's assume you're correct, that there are two ways of generating
intelligence, one way, the biological way, also generates consciousness
the other way, the electronic way, produces the same intelligence but no
consciousness. How could you make such a determination and have
any confidence in the results? You can't use behavior to make
the distinction because the behavior of the two is identical.
You could ONLY use internal mechanism and some theory of
consciousness but you'd have no way of knowing if your theory was correct.
>For all we know, an intelligent Robot (intelligence without
>consciousness) could exist.
For all we know you could be an intelligent zombie, an
intelligent man without consciousness. You're intelligent but
you MIGHT not be conscious, I can't PROVE you are. Even though
you have passed the Turing Test with honors, you could still
be non sentient. The probability however is far, far, too low to
worry about. I live my life by assuming that the Turing Test is
true, I have to, and when you are not talking to me about it
I'll bet you do to.
>We will have a better handle on these questions AFTER we
>know the anatomy and physiology of feeling/consciousness in
mammals.
I think someday we will understand the mechanics of consciousness,
but you don't like my methods and I'm convinced its the only
way to study such things. How would you do it? Not how would
you come up with theories, that's easy, I could dream up 10
before breakfast and never work up a sweat, you could too, the question is,
how would you prove or disprove any of them? The reason theories of
consciousness (BUT NOT INTELLIGENCE!) are so easy to come up
with is because they don't have to fit any facts.
For Example...
Clark's Consciousness Theory # 21612: Consciousness is caused when
a physical object resonates with the Zeta field. The Zeta field
pervades the entire universe but is completely unobservable (of course)
except for the fact that it is involved in the production of consciousness.
The only physical object that has the correct shape to resonate with
the Zeta field is a foot that wears a size 13 shoe. As it happens
(coincidence of course) my shoe size is 13 and I know I'm conscious.
Is this Theory silly? Of course it is. Can I EVER disprove it?
Of course I can't. A theory is silly, and not just wrong, when it
can never be proved or disproved regardless of the advances in technology.
To perform experiments you must make observations, but you can't
observe consciousness (except your own) you can only observe
ACTIONS and the mechanisms of the brain. You can use PET scans
and X rays and MRI scans of the brain, you can dissect it, you
can study it's chemical and electrical properties, but if you
ignore behavior then you don't have one shred of evidence that
ANY of that has the slightest thing to do with feeling or
consciousness. For that matter you have no evidence that the
brain itself has anything to do with sentience.
No matter what marvelous theories people come up with to explain
consciousness if the theory can't be proven wrong by observations
then it's not science, it's just more meta-physics or religion,
and that's a dime a dozen . I don't think feeling is beyond science
and experiment and the reason that I don't is because I believe in
the Turing Test, those who reject it must come to grips with the
mysticism of emotion.
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBL6MK6n03wfSpid95AQETdATvTNhlz2/sw7KjdexKYoQxYJ4cDr8PD+Tx
GCTRwM1325U/eAnM4mIPfB0JMKx7bPH3jHgOnfU5h+lOYqnOvagM4R+SyZ3iM6Qz
P+9av2E3bH2/V79I4/InAVBV1X9zYiRSfP3B3/d9iHNzZJ+XyUA7p7OFTfuMJg1G
mPSznoqNtKum/S2LKJ+2LT1Fnn0PB4onNyBAoXyQkZpJvwnZ1QA=
=A24l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4318