🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep14.220139.4525@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.144957.28355@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>No.  The main problem lies in the impossibility of constructing a table
>>sufficiently comprehensive.
>[various practical difficulties deleted]
>
>Are these practical difficulties really relevant?

The Turing test in intended to be a pragmatic test.  You can't put up
an unimplementable hypothetical to attack such a test.

>                                                   My point is that the
>essence of a certain limited form of the Turing test is captured by a
>lookup table

The essence of the Turing test is that it is not permitted to be limited.
A limited "Turing test" is not a Turing test.

>             (whether it can be implemented in our physical universe or
>not), and that many (not necessarily including myself) have an intuition
>that such a simple structure cannot be conscious.  If you have no such
>intuition, then forget the example.

It seems to me that you are claiming that, under the completely impractical
assumption that a particular non-conscious hypothesized solution to the
Turing test would work, then it would be demonstrated that the Turing
test does not demonstrate consciousness.  I'll grant you that, although
it is surely circular reasoning.