ASAers:
I'd like to respond to one rem ark Glenn made. See my comments below.
Glenn Morton wrote on Saturday, February 12, 2000 2:20 AM.
> At 02:38 PM 2/11/00 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
> >To the ASA group:
> >
> >See my comments below.
> >
> >David Bowman wrote on Friday, February 11, 2000 7:34 AM,
> >
> >> Regarding Glenn's comments:
> >>
> >> >Yes I am advocating a sort of Turing test for the image of God. If
> >someone
> >> >who doesn't look like me, acts human, prays, speaks, uses tools, and
> >other
> >> >things like this, then he is human regardless of how differenly he
> >looks.
> >> >If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck then
> >for
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >goodness sakes it is a DUCK!!!
> >>
> >> So looking like a duck is part of the duck test. How does this square
> >> with your preference for a Turing test then?
> >
> >I hadn't thought of comparing the Turing test with examining fossils and
> >the behavior of the living beings they represent. But it's a good
> >comparison, and I'm glad a few on this listserv have interjected it into
> >the thread. Isn't the Turing test a typical example of a secular
approach
> >to creation?
>
> It is basically an objective test. If you sit at a computer screen
speaking
> with several somethings who are electronically talking to you, and if you
> can't tell he difference between the responses given by the computer
> program and the responses given by the real people, then AI has been
> created. If there were a difference, one would be able to distinguish a
> machine from a person. Now, we might say that when we LOOK at the two
> entities and see in one case a beautiful young lady and in the other an
> ugly set of chips and wire, we might then reject that computer from
person
> hood. But that rejection is based solely upon looks and nothing else. If
> that is the case, that we include or reject beings from humanity on the
> basis of looks, it raises an interesting question.
>
> How ugly does someone have to be in order to be denied their humanity?
>
> When I was a Jr. Hi kid, in Ardmore Oklahoma, there was an old Indian who
> had large tumors growing out of half his face. That poor man was really
> ugly. We kids treated him badly. I suspect that deep down, we didn't
> really want to examine his actual humanity which lay under those ugly
> tumors. All we cared about was the looks. This is the danger of paying
> attention to looks when deciding humanity.
Glenn, I keep thinking that you are very close to the position I took in
the post that started this discussion a few days ago. You rightly deplore
judging whether a being is human on the basis of its looks or appearance. I
agree. But I make the same claim for fossils and the behavior of the beings
that were fossilized. I realize you have not included behavior. Really--can
you draw a line between a static being and that being in motion? Isn't the
appearance of a being related to its behavior? Of course, I know as well as
you do that motion and no motion are qualitatively different. But for this
discussion...?
> Do I think that AI will be achieved nd the Turring test passed by some
> computer? No. But I do think that there will be some close calls.
Why no? Because our technology can never be good enough, or is there some
other principial reason?
I enjoy discussing this with you!
Russ
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 12 2000 - 22:59:55 EST