🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7670@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Sep18.172123.14367@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>>Either you are talking about a different net, or your interpretation of
>>people's statements is very different from mine.  I see relatively few
>>people who claim that TT is all we should count as evidence, or who
>>claim that functional organization does not matter. 
>
>Why is it then that when I suggest that functional organization 
>(or, more generally, "how it works") should count, no one on the
>anti-Searle side says they agree? 

This is silly.  You've said this a number of times now, and it's
just wrong.  As far as I can tell, most of the most sophisticated
defenders of the "strong AI" positions on the net don't put any
special weight on the Turing Test or behavior; rather, it's the
organization of internal causation that counts.  Certainly I have
disavowed the Turing Test a number of times, as has Drew McDermott.
The only sophisticated defender of strong AI who I've seen defend
the behaviorist position is Daryl McCullough, but at least he does
it in a sophisticated way.  Certainly there are some people who
have a knee-jerk TT response, but you don't need to pay attention
to everybody out there.

Opponents of strong AI tend for some reason to assume that the
Turing Test is at the logical foundation of the strong AI
position, and fixate upon it.  This is simply not the case.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."