Path: news.net.uni-c.dk!newsfeeds.net.uni-c.dk!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.tele.dk!195.224.53.60!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!gxn.net!cygnus.co.uk!not-for-mail From: aph@redhat.invalid Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.lang.apl,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Einstein's Riddle Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Lines: 43 Message-ID: <98njv5$rfh$1@localhost.localdomain> References: <3AACB567.A59B8497@Azonic.co.nz> <3AACE6CF.7F05484D@ieee.org> <0W8r6.178$fo5.14165@news.get2net.dk> <3AAD60F3.120F284A@ieee.org> <3AAE371A.2F9F596F@brazee.net> <98m43a$fe2$1@localhost.localdomain> <3AAEAD1A.BCDE11DB@ix.netcom.com> <98mugg$2mj$1@news.igs.net> <3AAF13CA.C7EA3113@ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: viagra.cambridge.redhat.com X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 984568613 28145 172.16.18.77 (14 Mar 2001 11:16:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@localhost.localdomain NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:16:53 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.16-22 (i686)) Xref: news.net.uni-c.dk comp.ai.neural-nets:67569 comp.lang.apl:29393 comp.lang.awk:17160 comp.lang.beta:12760 comp.lang.cobol:102639 comp.lang.dylan:24181 comp.lang.forth:78575 In comp.lang.forth J Thomas wrote: : If you're doing the Turing Test, and you ask what is : 1355693147 * 25190678237 : and you get a quick correct answer, you can conclude that it probably : isn't human. Why? "It" might have a calculator. : One thing needed to pass the Turing Test is to make the kind of logic : mistakes that humans make. Perhaps, but it's no use as a test: a computer can easily be programmed to make mistakes, and a computer programmed using heuristics will definitely make "mistakes". : The Turing Test isn't about a program that's good at finding solutions : to problems, or a program that's good at redefining problems to make : them easier to solve. The Turing Test is about a program that's good at : imitating stupid humans. It's about a program that is indistinguishable from someone already known to be intelligent, that's all. Turing's point is simply that it is absurd to credit a person with intelligence if you refuse, given equal evidence, to credit a computer. Unless you don't credit people with intelligence either, which I don't believe. :> If you take that line, then the only logical endpoint :> is that there is no such thing as intelligence (which may be true). : I doubt that there's a unitary intelligence. Different brains are good : at solving different problems. We won't be ready to understand the : intelligence of oak trees There is no evidence that oak trees do anything related to cognitive processing. Andrew.