Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6315344" data-attributes="member: 13107">Huh,The sample chat, above, is unconvincing.&nbsp; The chat is using a lot of tricks to deflect from having to engage the questions.Also, using typed text as the test, while making for a easier to define test, really is cheating, as the bandwidth of text is so much less than an actual face-to-face conversation.But, I thought that (at least) two points of the &quot;Turing Test&quot; were that &quot;Thinking&quot; was undefined, with the only current measure was &quot;can the system emulate a human&quot; with a criteria that the result was measure by observation.Following on that, what I've gathered about perspectives on the Turing Test, as defined, was that if a system can emulate a person, to an arbitrarily high standard, then however the system works doesn't matter, as the system must have, somewhere, sufficient complexity to match whatever a person does.The definition of the test does create a problem in regards to measuring &quot;thinking&quot;, in shifting the burden all on side.&nbsp; The person is (as a given) thinking.&nbsp; That the person perceives a system as also thinking may be an illusion of perception; a fault of how brains work.&nbsp; That gets into questions of perceptions and how thinking works.&nbsp; (E.g., all of a person's awareness is a construct of the brain.&nbsp; What we think we are aware of is all brain state, conveyed through physical processes for sure, but at the perception level, brain state.)Thx!TomB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 6315344, member: 13107"] Huh, The sample chat, above, is unconvincing. The chat is using a lot of tricks to deflect from having to engage the questions. Also, using typed text as the test, while making for a easier to define test, really is cheating, as the bandwidth of text is so much less than an actual face-to-face conversation. But, I thought that (at least) two points of the "Turing Test" were that "Thinking" was undefined, with the only current measure was "can the system emulate a human" with a criteria that the result was measure by observation. Following on that, what I've gathered about perspectives on the Turing Test, as defined, was that if a system [i]can[/i] emulate a person, to an arbitrarily high standard, then however the system works doesn't matter, as the system must have, somewhere, sufficient complexity to match whatever a person does. The definition of the test does create a problem in regards to measuring "thinking", in shifting the burden all on side. The person is (as a given) thinking. That the person perceives a system as also thinking may be an illusion of perception; a fault of how brains work. That gets into questions of perceptions and how thinking works. (E.g., all of a person's awareness is a construct of the brain. What we think we are aware of is all brain state, conveyed through physical processes for sure, but at the perception level, brain state.) Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]

Verification