🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7889@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>Minsky's posting was on the table lookup machine.  My point was
>(roughly) that people didn't respond to McCullough and Minksy
>on TLMs the way the responded to Putnam on rocks.
>...

>In any case, I will save you the trouble of finding the Minsky
>article.  Here it is:
 [copy deleted for brevity]

The explanation should be clear.  In the article you cite, neither the
quotation from McCullough nor the comments of Minsky assert that the
TLM (table lookup machine) would be conscious.  They merely make the
much weaker assertion that it is not obvious that the TLM is not
conscious.  In other words, they are reserving judgement until there
is more evidence.

What exactly did you expect - a rampage of flaming aimed at McCullough and
Minsky because they dared to keep open minds on the issue?

In article <7883@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <27526@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>>
>>According to Popper a theory accumulates _no_ extra virtue by making
>>more verified predictions. The value of the confirming experiment is a
>>human weakness in scientists, and not logical -- according to Popper.
>
>Take that Turing Testers!

What exactly was the relevance of this to the Turing Test?  Surely the
TT is only a pragmatic test, and is not a theory designed to make
predictions.