🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7707@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.193732.71311@Cookie.secapl.com> frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) writes:
>>In article <7670@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>Well, I agree, for one.  I do believe, on the other hand, that *in the
>>universe we live in*, it is impossible to create a system which will pass
>>the TT but which is not actually intelligent.
>
>It may surprise you, but I almost agree with this.  It's difficult
>to explain in a way that won't be misinterpreted (as I found the
>last time I tried it), but here goes.
>
>So far as any of us knows, it may turn out that all physically
>possible entities that pass the TT have to do it with the aid
>of intelligence, real understanding, consciousness, or whatever
>we take the key issue to be.

I think we entirely agree on this.  My quoted belief above is a scientific
speculation (hypothesis would be too strong a term); I reasons for thinking
it to be true, but there may be possibilities I have missed.

>  (Of course, it may also turn out
>that there's no way to get a computer to pass the TT just by
>giving it the right program.)

I disagree.  My belief that functional organization is all that is required
for intelligence/qualia/consciousness is much more firmly grounded; it is
essentially a philosophical position.  On the other hand, it is not at all
unlikely that no computer now in existence can be programmed to pass the TT.
Less likely, but still possible, is that no von Neuman machine can pass the
TT; but massively parallel computers are still computers.

>>>Moreover, it should be straightforward to see that the TT is
>>>fatally flawed.  A significant aspect of human consciousness is
>>>that we conduct an internal dialogue.  That is, we can think
>>>thoughts to ourself in linguistic form.
>>
>>  This is something that, in fact, we do; but I see
>>no reason to believe that it is an essential part of being intelligent.
>
>I think it does matter (in the end) whether we say the issue is
>intelligence or understanding or consciousness or qualia or whatever,
>because I don't think the answers for these different questions will
>necessarily be the same.
>
>The internal dialogue, however, is an important part of our mental
>life.  I think it matters whether something is conscious of, say,
>reasons for doing one thing rather than another.  Some other entity
>that made similar decisions without any reflective capability would
>be significantly different.

My response was putting a heavy emphasis on your "in linguistic form".
I expect that the existence of reflective capability will turn out to be an
essential part of what constitutes intelligence.

Unlike you, I strongly expect that intelligence, consciousness, and qualia
will prove to be irretrievably intertwined, because the type of system
needed to produce any of them will necessarily produce all of them.  (That's
a nomic "needed" and a logical "necessarily", in case anybody's keeping
score :-)).