(urth) 5HC : Chinese boxes or tea chests?

[Maru Dubshinki]

I think what he said is even more fundamental than that-(stop me if
I've said this before). I think what Turing is saying, is that if you
can't tell the difference in output, can't make statistically
meaningful differentiation, than you have no choice but to grant it
personhood, because you will *never* find a better method, a better
test.

~Maru
Now here's an interesting thought problem- postulate a vast group of
robots who can pass the Turing Test, and mimic a bright, inventive
young engineer so well nobody can tell the difference through a
screen, and who are also reasonably physically handy.  Suppose every
real 'human' died off and all that is left are robots w/0 "real
counsciousness". What would happen if they discovered an asteroid
coming, and the only possible way of survival was to blow it up with a
nuke? Suppose further that they made like a human, solving all
technical problems, and an advanced alien civilization came by
impressed by what they had done.  Would the aliens accord the robots
'personhood' and would they be right or wrong?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:32:45 +0000, Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
....
> I would say that Turing is really answering this "ought" question: a machine
> that appears to be conscious should be granted personhood even if you're
> unsure of the truth of whether it "is" intelligent. And I think it is even
> more clear that this is the position that Wolfe holds with the example of
> Rose.