Given your last few paragraphs, should you go back and edit/delete most of your first few paragraphs? 

This turned into a good subject as it has gotten me to read up more on AI.  Mostly wiki and a few links from there.  I like their review.  Defining AI as whatever quite can't be done by computers right now.  Good example:  OCR, Occular Character Recognition==lots of hurdles, will it ever be reached?===And Moore's law gets us there in just a few iterations so that now this AI feature is given away for free and the next AI level gets identified==and as they all say:  "Everyone thought we'd be there by now."  Whatever the there is but the complexity of AI for mimicking humans takes even more Moore than initially, secondarily, and tertiarially thought of==to be extended even more by yourself:

"Perhaps in order to truly act like a human really does require that the computer "become human" on some fundamental level. Else this would have certainly been accomplished by now."  ///  completely false.  Shows a very fundamental lack of understanding what a computer is and what a human being is.  Ha, ha.  I don't know enough about either either, but you are obviously wrong.  Before we die, I believe computers/nets will be capable enough not to be told apart from humans.  Computers that fail the test could be thought of as stupid humans, just as stupid humans will be thought of as defective computers===because we think humans are the standard.  Stupid Humans.  Stupid Computers.  Why not?  But you are still making the most basic of errors:  to think when computers fool humans then they will be "near human."  Why don't you give the tic tac toe playing chicken the same respect?

Do you have a better test? Please share it. The one in the original post here is not it. ////// Gawd--what a stupid comment:  whether made by human or computer.  The OP Test IS NOT THE TURING TEST!!!!!!  It just shows the current state of capability for computers to respond to spatial orientations in order to mimic humans in conversations.

Do you have an explanation for why, if the imitation game is so easy, no computer has ever passed?   ////  You are the only one saying the imitation game is easy.  You argue like a teabagger, and that ain't human.

Ha, Ha.  If Watson is being created to be helpful, maybe a program modeled after myself could be called Moriarity?

Keep reading.  Its really not subject to dispute.

"Perhaps in order to truly act like a human really does require that the computer "become human" on some fundamental level. Else this would have certainly been accomplished by now."  ///  completely false.  Shows a very fundamental lack of understanding what a computer is and what a human being is.  Ha, ha.  I don't know enough about either either, but you are obviously wrong.  Before we die, I believe computers/nets will be capable enough not to be told apart from humans.  Computers that fail the test could be thought of as stupid humans, just as stupid humans will be thought of as defective computers===because we think humans are the standard.  Stupid Humans.  Stupid Computers.  Why not?  But you are still making the most basic of errors:  to think when computers fool humans then they will be "near human."  Why don't you give the tic tac toe playing chicken the same respect?

Do you have a better test? Please share it. The one in the original post here is not it. ////// Gawd--what a stupid comment:  whether made by human or computer.  The OP Test IS NOT THE TURING TEST!!!!!!  It just shows the current state of capability for computers to respond to spatial orientations in order to mimic humans in conversations.

Do you have an explanation for why, if the imitation game is so easy, no computer has ever passed?   ////  You are the only one saying the imitation game is easy.  You argue like a teabagger, and that ain't human.

Ha, Ha.  If Watson is being created to be helpful, maybe a program modeled after myself could be called Moriarity?

Keep reading.  Its really not subject to dispute.

Like a neutered dog bobbo, you just don't get it. You can be as asinine and insulting as you choose. When you can explain why no computer in 61 years has even come close to passing the Turing Test, you'll see why it's a much better test that you understand at present.

Further, when you think about what the hell a human brain is, you will know why people think a computer could one day achieve real sentience, real intelligence, and real thought.

The incredible wonder of the human brain, or the dolphin brain, or the ... brain, is that it really is working on electrical impulses. There happen to be rather a lot of neurons in a brain and dramatically more connections. And, we've had hundreds of millions of years of evolution to get to the brains of today's extant species, but it's all still just electrical impulses. How did that ever achieve sentience, intelligence, and thought?

As for why humans are the standard, it sure as hell isn't because we're perfect. It's because it's us doing the testing. If dolphins were doing the testing, they would use dolphins as the standard. But, they have better things to do.

This conversation would probably go a lot better if you would answer at least one question when asked. Else, we're not having a conversation. We're just talking at each other.

Why don't I give a tic tac toe playing chicken respect? For starters because I didn't know that any exist. Let me know if they can pass the Turing Test. Then, I'll have a nice conversation with your chicken. As for something not being subject to dispute, you'll have to actually maintain a train of thought. What in your conversation do you consider to be axiomatic? Have you got some religion about the computer versus the human? Why is the subject sacrosanct? Try science and evidence instead of axiomatic claims about computers and people. It'll carry a lot more weight.

Ha, ha Scott--you almost didn't even get pissed.  Let's parse:

Like a neutered dog bobbo, you just don't get it. You can be as asinine and insulting as you choose. When you can explain why no computer in 61 years has even come close to passing the Turing Test, you'll see why it's a much better test that you understand at present.  ////  Why do I or anyone else, much less a fully endowed dog, need to explain/excuse/defend the progress to date?  YOU are the one that has said it was "easy" and should have been done by now.  I linked you to an article, and/or referenced wiki, how OCR was AI a few years ago and that it was Moore's Law==more computer power, more connections, being applied to the subject (I didn't mention software because it wasn't mentioned in what I read, but that must be part of it as well?)  I'm telling you that passing the Turing Test will not even be close to human intelligence===only as you repeat the words but don't understand that passing the Turing Test will "fool" human beings about being intelligent merely by mimicking human behavior.  I think I demonstrate an active, real, balanced, current understanding of the Turing Test while you continue to display a failure to understand what it means.  Maybe you should focus on the ARTIFICIAL in AI instead of being fixated on INTELLIGENCE?

Further, when you think about what the hell a human brain is, you will know why people think a computer could one day achieve real sentience, real intelligence, and real thought.  ////  More strawman red herring.  I never said or implied or came close to challenging whether or not a computer will ever gain sentience, real or otherwise.  I've been commenting on YOUR UNDERSTANDING of what passing the Turing Test does mean.  Two different subjects.  ----  I have to guess you all computers need is a large number of memory cells and connections?  But as I have referenced earlier in the thread and in this post, the "humaness"/sentience as opposed to the intelligence may be more in the software.  The five senses, billions of years of evolution making the software.  How are mere connections going to come up with lust, love, fear, anger, empathy, hopes, dreams, frustration, and all the rest?  Fear of being unplugged?

The incredible wonder of the human brain, or the dolphin brain, or the ... brain, is that it really is working on electrical impulses. ///  WRONG!!  Thats not the wonder, thats the mechanics.  The WONDER is self awareness/consciousness.  That is separate from intelligence and sentience.  That this self awareness is dependent on the physicality of the brain yet somehow is apart from the brain, is the mystery.  I can see computers getting a "type" of goal oriented behavior that will be easily be labeled self aware ((think Skynet)) but that isn't even sentience.  Deep ideas about what it is to be human.  I don't think you can get there by looking at it from the computer side of things.   The converse is definitely true:  computers may become sentient and how would humans ever know?  Ain't that a kick.  Read Locke and Descarte:  all they affirm is that they know "they" are thinking entities that think.  Big schools in philosophy about whether or not anything other than one entity thinking even exists.  Other entities:  other humans, other computers.

There happen to be rather a lot of neurons in a brain and dramatically more connections. And, we've had hundreds of millions of years of evolution to get to the brains of today's extant species, but it's all still just electrical impulses. How did that ever achieve sentience, intelligence, and thought?  ///  thats the question and the answer may be those millions of years of evolution--the programing.  Yes, that is CERTAINLY TRUE.  Just chain linking a billion home computers together gets you nothing but a huge calculator.  Its the software that makes it what it is.  In fact, brain size and intelligence is only a positive correlation.  Whales have bigger brains but the software isn't as good.  Proof positive?

As for why humans are the standard, it sure as hell isn't because we're perfect. It's because it's us doing the testing. If dolphins were doing the testing, they would use dolphins as the standard. But, they have better things to do.

This conversation would probably go a lot better if you would answer at least one question when asked. Else, we're not having a conversation. We're just talking at each other.  //// Knock, knock...........

Why don't I give a tic tac toe playing chicken respect? For starters because I didn't know that any exist. Let me know if they can pass the Turing Test. Then, I'll have a nice conversation with your chicken. ////  Alex:  I'll take famous examples of people thinking something showed intelligence in non humans for $100.

As for something not being subject to dispute, you'll have to actually maintain a train of thought. What in your conversation do you consider to be axiomatic? ////  That passing the Turing Test is necessary but not sufficient ability a computer will have to possess on its way to intelligence, THEN sentience, THEN self awareness. 

Have you got some religion about the computer versus the human?  //// Me?  The anti-theist???  Would be fun if we could name it.

Why is the subject sacrosanct? ////  Its not.  More straw man red herring arguments from you.  Its distracting.  Very Watson of you.

Try science and evidence instead of axiomatic claims about computers and people. It'll carry a lot more weight.  ///  Ha, ha.  Just above you challenge me to even name what I consider to be axiomatic as if I was not being axiomatic.  Now you chide me for being overly axiomatic.  More inconsistent argumentation on your part.  Hard to tell what you really think.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes, I directly answer most, not all-just most, of your questions but you like to deny this.  You don't think that referencing that humans think god is sentient doesn't answer a whole lot about your position?  I think it answers more than you understand.

So, maybe one direct question per post?  Here's mine to you as you have spoken not exclusively to one side or the other as I have:  In your view, is a computer that does pass the Turing Test intelligent, sentient, or self aware?  Or a combo of what?  Or something else.  I have told you repeatedly now my position is that it will be none of those things.  It will only "fool" humans into thinking it is a human being.  Do you understand what being "fooled" means?.........Like God?......but now I'm asking more than one question as if there was something axiomatic going on.

Stay Thirsty my Friend.

Ha, ha Scott--you almost didn't even get pissed.  Let's parse:

Blog trolls anger me. Heated discussions with those I mostly respect do not. You're correct. I got agitated, heated, annoyed, not pissed, not angry. I enjoy a heated debate.

Like a neutered dog bobbo, you just don't get it. You can be as asinine and insulting as you choose. When you can explain why no computer in 61 years has even come close to passing the Turing Test, you'll see why it's a much better test that you understand at present.  ////  Why do I or anyone else, much less a fully endowed dog, need to explain/excuse/defend the progress to date?  YOU are the one that has said it was "easy" and should have been done by now.  I linked you to an article, and/or referenced wiki, how OCR was AI a few years ago and that it was Moore's Law==more computer power, more connections, being applied to the subject (I didn't mention software because it wasn't mentioned in what I read, but that must be part of it as well?)  I'm telling you that passing the Turing Test will not even be close to human intelligence===only as you repeat the words but don't understand that passing the Turing Test will "fool" human beings about being intelligent merely by mimicking human behavior.  I think I demonstrate an active, real, balanced, current understanding of the Turing Test while you continue to display a failure to understand what it means.  Maybe you should focus on the ARTIFICIAL in AI instead of being fixated on INTELLIGENCE?

You need to explain the progress to date, or complete and utter lack thereof, because you seem to think that the Turing Test is not a good one. If it's such an easy test to pass, if mimicry of humans is such an insignificant thing, why has no one been able to get a computer to pass it yet? Right in this post, you assert that the Turing Test is not even close to testing anything approaching human intelligence. And yet, it's still well beyond the capability of computers that have followed Moore's Law for 61 years and are still failing utterly. Why is it so hard for such powerful computers to pass such a simplistic test?

How are mere connections going to come up with lust, love, fear, anger, empathy, hopes, dreams, frustration, and all the rest?  Fear of being unplugged?

Good question. How did mere connections, albeit trillions of them, come up with all of this in the human brain (replacing the word unplugged with the word killed for human beings, of course)?

The incredible wonder of the human brain, or the dolphin brain, or the ... brain, is that it really is working on electrical impulses. ///  WRONG!!  Thats not the wonder, thats the mechanics.  The WONDER is self awareness/consciousness.  That is separate from intelligence and sentience.  That this self awareness is dependent on the physicality of the brain yet somehow is apart from the brain, is the mystery.  I can see computers getting a "type" of goal oriented behavior that will be easily be labeled self aware ((think Skynet)) but that isn't even sentience.  Deep ideas about what it is to be human.  I don't think you can get there by looking at it from the computer side of things.   The converse is definitely true:  computers may become sentient and how would humans ever know?  Ain't that a kick.  Read Locke and Descarte:  all they affirm is that they know "they" are thinking entities that think.  Big schools in philosophy about whether or not anything other than one entity thinking even exists.  Other entities:  other humans, other computers.

The mechanics and the sentience and intelligence are inseparable. Unless you believe that the mind continues after the brain dies, which is a religious belief, the two are intimately intertwined and inseparable. That you believe the self awareness is separate or apart from the brain is religious. J'Accuse. The evangelical anti-theist has religion. All that makes the brain sentient and (sometimes) intelligent is the electrical impulses coursing through our hundred billion neurons with their trillions of connections. That's it. When you understand that, you will see why, at least in theory though possibly not in practice, computers are indeed capable of real intelligence, not artificial intelligence. How to tell the difference? I don't know. So far, the best test we have is still the Turing Test.

The original post that you posted claimed this new test to be "the Visual Turing Test". What I object to is giving this new crappy test the name Turing.

There happen to be rather a lot of neurons in a brain and dramatically more connections. And, we've had hundreds of millions of years of evolution to get to the brains of today's extant species, but it's all still just electrical impulses. How did that ever achieve sentience, intelligence, and thought?  ///  thats the question and the answer may be those millions of years of evolution--the programing.  Yes, that is CERTAINLY TRUE.  Just chain linking a billion home computers together gets you nothing but a huge calculator.  Its the software that makes it what it is.  In fact, brain size and intelligence is only a positive correlation.  Whales have bigger brains but the software isn't as good.  Proof positive?

Whales have smaller brains. You missed the point there. It's about the brain size to body weight curve. It's not a perfect correlation. But, generally, animals that are higher on that curve, not in absolute brain size, appear to do better at the type of intelligence humans test for, biased of course, than animals that are lower on the curve. Even a sperm whale with a 16 pound brain is lower on the curve than we are. Bottle-nosed dolphins are second.

That said, bottle nosed dolphins, whether we admit it or not, do seem to understand us, even when we communicate through a 2 dimensional video of a human, which most species will not recognize as a human at all. And, they get complex instructions like "be creative". They are fully capable of inventing new tricks for next week's show when asked to "be creative". That's a really complex concept.

What do we understand when they speak? I'll let you know when we understand the very first word of theirs that we manage to translate. Thus far, to my knowledge, the answer is not a damn thing. But, since that's not what we test for ....

Why don't I give a tic tac toe playing chicken respect? For starters because I didn't know that any exist. Let me know if they can pass the Turing Test. Then, I'll have a nice conversation with your chicken. ////  Alex:  I'll take famous examples of people thinking something showed intelligence in non humans for $100.

Still don't have a freakin' clue what this has to do with this conversation.

As for something not being subject to dispute, you'll have to actually maintain a train of thought. What in your conversation do you consider to be axiomatic? ////  That passing the Turing Test is necessary but not sufficient ability a computer will have to possess on its way to intelligence, THEN sentience, THEN self awareness. 

OK. I'd be fine with agreeing with that statement. Perhaps the Turing Test is not the end goal. But, what is? So far, it seems that a computer has to become so close to a human to even pass the Turing Test that today's most powerful computers still completely and utterly fail despite 61 years of effort.

Have you got some religion about the computer versus the human?  //// Me?  The anti-theist???  Would be fun if we could name it.

Why is the subject sacrosanct? ////  Its not.  More straw man red herring arguments from you.  Its distracting.  Very Watson of you.

Try science and evidence instead of axiomatic claims about computers and people. It'll carry a lot more weight.  ///  Ha, ha.  Just above you challenge me to even name what I consider to be axiomatic as if I was not being axiomatic.  Now you chide me for being overly axiomatic.  More inconsistent argumentation on your part.  Hard to tell what you really think.

Whatever the "it" was in this quote of yours below, and I admit that wasn't entirely clear, stating that it is not subject to dispute is stating that it is axiomatic, i.e. that you have a religious belief on the subject, that it is sacrosanct.

Keep reading.  Its really not subject to dispute.

What was the it in this again? I thought I was clear when I read it the first time. Now, rereading your post, I'm not clear about what it is. Oh, and since you're into definitions, check the difference between "its" and "it's". Just one of my pet peeves, like mixing up their, there, and they're.

So, maybe one direct question per post?  Here's mine to you as you have spoken not exclusively to one side or the other as I have:  In your view, is a computer that does pass the Turing Test intelligent, sentient, or self aware?  Or a combo of what?  Or something else.  I have told you repeatedly now my position is that it will be none of those things.  It will only "fool" humans into thinking it is a human being.  Do you understand what being "fooled" means?.........Like God?......but now I'm asking more than one question as if there was something axiomatic going on.

Well, I admit you have me thinking about the quality of the Turing Test a bit more than I expected. So, I'll say this.

1.  I know of no better test than the Turing Test.
2.  I cannot imagine how to tell the difference between a computer that can convince me that it is a sentient and intelligent human being and a computer that actually is sentient and intelligent.
3.  In the absence of a better test than my own ability to tell whether a computer is an excellent mimic of an intelligent and sentient human being, I'm prepared to accept it as close enough. Perhaps if you come up with a better test, I'll change my opinion. Until then. This is the best we have.
4.  Keep in mind, I also believe that only an extremely small percentage of the human population is actually intelligent. And, I don't include myself in that list.

What have you done lately to advance the knowledge of humanity? Where's your Nobel Prize in Physics or some other non-peace Nobel Prize? (The Nobel Peace Prize was made ludicrous years ago when Yasir Arafat was given one. There are other examples. That should be a non-controversial example though since he was an admitted murderer of innocent children. I remember him claiming responsibility for blowing up school buses when I was a child.)

No. I don't have one either. That's why I don't include myself in the list of the truly intelligent. Perhaps a Nobel Prize isn't the real measure. But, I have not furthered the sum total of human knowledge one iota. And, I'm betting you haven't either. I'm proud enough to be able to understand at some level some of the things the truly intelligent folks on the planet do. But, actually contributing to the human knowledge base? Actually having truly original and important ideas? That's out of my league ... and probably yours too. So, if I can assume that we have the right to vote, why not a computer capable of fooling me into thinking it's as smart as you are?

Wow!!===You parsed, this should be most excellent.  What did it take, 4 pages for us to actually address the issues rather than passe each other?  Lets hope.  I will take your issues as I see them one at a time without reading the entire post first.

1.  I enjoy a heated debate.//// Believe it or don't:  I don't.  I want everything thing I say to be accept as a statement of love.  Sadly, ironically ((thats not the right word)) it NEVER works out that way.  And such is life.  I really don't want to insult or be demeaning.  Its just my nature, not my desire.  Ha, ha. xxxxx  I come off antagonistic because that is the way I think.  Against myself, or anyone else.......or is it?  What would Dr Phil say?

2.  "You need to explain the progress to date, or complete and utter lack thereof, because you seem to think that the Turing Test is not a good one. //// I expressly stated or implied NO SUCH THING.  Straw Man Scott.  Who are you responding to?  Not me.  And thats why there is no progress:  it really is ALL ON YOU!!!!

If it's such an easy test to pass, ///  i never said that.

if mimicry of humans is such an insignificant thing, /// I never said that

why has no one been able to get a computer to pass it yet?  ///  because it is hard just as the OP on visual Turing test shows.

 Right in this post, you assert that the Turing Test is not even close to testing anything approaching human intelligence. ///  Finally==that is correct===BY DEFINITION!!!!!!  "the ability to mimic human behavior and fool a human into thinking he is conversing with another human being."  THAT IS THE TURING TEST!!!!!  Where do you get AI or Skynet out of that?

 And yet, it's still well beyond the capability of computers that have followed Moore's Law for 61 years and are still failing utterly. Why is it so hard for such powerful computers to pass such a simplistic test?  ///  Read YOUR own words:  because it ain't that easy.  I've already said that expressly and ain't that the fact of the matter?  Why do you impute BS to me?  There is BS............

3.  Good question. How did mere connections, albeit trillions of them, come up with all of this in the human brain (replacing the word unplugged with the word killed for human beings, of course)? ///  The wonder is not the human brain, but human consciousness/self awareness.  THAT is the wonder.  Not the mechanics.  Yes, trillions of connections "shaped"/programmed by Billions of years of evolution.  Give me a religious oceananic feeling.  Mind blowing in simple contemplation.

4.  The mechanics and the sentience and intelligence are inseparable. /// No.  If that were true, then your position would be that AI is impossible as its mechanics are mechanical/digital/programmed whereas human intelligence is tissue/analogue/evolved.  You'll respond its the "electricity" that equates them but I'm not ECA and that gross generalization about a commonality does not control all the differences.  That is the very wonder/challenge of AI.

That you believe the self awareness is separate or apart from the brain is religious. J'Accuse ////  Thats a fair critique the way I posted it.  No--the sentience of humans is intricably linked and grounded in the physical brain.  Its the language of the linquists and brain scientists that pulled me off our mutual agreement.  THEY talk about human consciousness as being "something" other than the physicality of the brain---yet tied to it.  It is definitional.  I'll leave it for later should it become central to discussion.

at least in theory though possibly not in practice, computers are indeed capable of real intelligence, /// grammatically conflicting, but I'll let it pass.  What you mean to say is:  "...at least in theory, though possibly not in practice, computers may be capable of xxxx.  XXXX because I can't tell what you mean to say.  AI/intelligence/sentience/consciousness/self awareness/human being===all different ideas.

 not artificial intelligence. How to tell the difference? I don't know. So far, the best test we have is still the Turing Test.  ///  NO!!!  The point of the Turing Test is "famously" that he said intelligence could not be understood well enough to be tested.  The Turing Test is what it is:  can a computer be programmed to fool a human being.  Why do you equate that to actually being human?   

The original post that you posted claimed this new test to be "the Visual Turing Test". What I object to is giving this new crappy test the name Turing.  ///  We agree. Its just trying to play off the name.  but its just a label.  an intelligent computer would look past the label to what is actually being addressed and demonstrated.

5.  Whales have smaller brains. You missed the point there. It's about the brain size to body weight curve /// Ha, ha.  Yes--human centric BS.  YOUR ARGUMENT is that the computer will be sentient when it has an equal number of electrical connections.  The whales brain has more connections than the human brain.  As I already posted:  its the SOFTWARE!!!!!  You really miss the boat.


What do we understand when they speak? I'll let you know when we understand the very first word of theirs that we manage to translate. Thus far, to my knowledge, the answer is not a damn thing. But, since that's not what we test for ....//// I assume we do "know" as in distress calls, mating calls, food is here calls, get ready for the air bubbles and so forth.  Does go right to the heart of the matter though:  what is sentience, consciousness, intelligence, self awareness.  Everything we have been discussing while firmly NOT DEFINING===the same root problem that cause Turing to call his test what he did.  Simple English.  No whale calls required.

6.  The intelligent Chicken example.  //// Let's skip it then.

7.  OK. I'd be fine with agreeing with that statement. Perhaps the Turing Test is not the end goal. But, what is? So far, it seems that a computer has to become so close to a human to even pass the Turing Test that today's most powerful computers still completely and utterly fail despite 61 years of effort. //// No.  Not even close.  do you understand what "fool human beings means?"  ...... as in humans think gods exist?  Jesus Scott---buy a clue.

8.  Oh, and since you're into definitions, check the difference between "its" and "it's". Smiley Just one of my pet peeves, like mixing up their, there, and they're. ///  Thats not a definitional dispute.  Yes, you are easily sidetracked by the irrelevant.  Stay focused ....... after you get focused.

9.  Whatever the "it" was in this quote of yours below, and I admit that wasn't entirely clear, stating that it is not subject to dispute is stating that it is axiomatic, i.e. that you have a religious belief on the subject, that it is sacrosanct.

Quote from: bobbo on September 25, 2011, 04:53:15 PM
Keep reading.  Its really not subject to dispute.  ///// It may not be clear--but what I was referring to is the "meaning of" the Turing Test.  Don't take my word for it--read any internet description of it==even the one you recited?  "TO FOOL A HUMAN BEING!!!!!!"  Pretty fucking obvious.

You continue with:

10.  Well, I admit you have me thinking about the quality of the Turing Test a bit more than I expected. So, I'll say this.  ////  You lose me.  The Turing Test is what it is but you start with that and have it meaning all sorts of things that Turning Himself SAID it didn't mean.  Its so obvious to me, I treat as an axiom.  You are still thinking about it.  Scott.................its defined.  Defined by the definer.  Defined by Turing.  Defined by what it does.  Defined by....not you.  Learn what context means.  Apply it.

1.  I know of no better test than the Turing Test. /// Yea--test for what? 
2.  I cannot imagine how to tell the difference between a computer that can convince me that it is a sentient and intelligent human being and a computer that actually is sentient and intelligent. /// Exactly--but back up.  Can you conceive of a calculator that can fool a human being?  Which is more complicated to achieve?  Which do you think will be achieved first?  The simple thing, or the more complicated thing?  ............ Do dah?
3.  In the absence of a better test than my own ability to tell whether a computer is an excellent mimic of an intelligent and sentient human being, I'm prepared to accept it as close enough. Perhaps if you come up with a better test, I'll change my opinion. Until then. This is the best we have.  //// WRONG!!!!!!!!  You FATALLY equate fooling a human being, as in "mimic" a human being---with actually being human.  ITS NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!  Its the tic,tac,toe playing chicken:  not intelligent at all, but many people will think it is.  Jebussssssss.
4.  Keep in mind, I also believe that only an extremely small percentage of the human population is actually intelligent. And, I don't include myself in that list.  ///  Both statements are definitional and you are full of crap.  Just like a human being.

What have you done lately to advance the knowledge of humanity? Where's your Nobel Prize in Physics or some other non-peace Nobel Prize? ///  Nothing.  Irrelevant side issue not fairly raised.

No. I don't have one either. That's why I don't include myself in the list of the truly intelligent. ///  True or not, its not the issue.  Interesting you pollute the thread with such irrelevancies.

Perhaps a Nobel Prize isn't the real measure. But, I have not furthered the sum total of human knowledge one iota. ///  Few of us do---but relevantly==have you furthered the sum total of your own knowledge?  ..... of yourself?  that is our main task on planet Earth:  "How do you know what you know, and how do you change your mind?"xxxx  "A life unexamined, is not worth living." xxxx ".....and the beast in the Jungle...lept."

And, I'm betting you haven't either. I'm proud enough to be able to understand at some level some of the things the truly intelligent folks on the planet do. But, actually contributing to the human knowledge base? Actually having truly original and important ideas? That's out of my league ... and probably yours too. So, if I can assume that we have the right to vote, why not a computer capable of fooling me into thinking it's as smart as you are? ////  because its not human.

Wow!!===You parsed, this should be most excellent.  What did it take, 4 pages for us to actually address the issues rather than passe each other?  Lets hope.  I will take your issues as I see them one at a time without reading the entire post first.

Wow!!! bobbo===acting like a condescending asshole. Whodda thunk it??!!? (Did I get your punctuation style right for you to understand it?

1.  I enjoy a heated debate.//// Believe it or don't:  I don't.  I want everything thing I say to be accept as a statement of love.  Sadly, ironically ((thats not the right word)) it NEVER works out that way.  And such is life.  I really don't want to insult or be demeaning.  Its just my nature, not my desire.  Ha, ha. xxxxx  I come off antagonistic because that is the way I think.  Against myself, or anyone else.......or is it?  What would Dr Phil say?

Then, why come to a site called Cage Match?

2.  "You need to explain the progress to date, or complete and utter lack thereof, because you seem to think that the Turing Test is not a good one. //// I expressly stated or implied NO SUCH THING.  Straw Man Scott.  Who are you responding to?  Not me.  And thats why there is no progress:  it really is ALL ON YOU!!!!

If it's such an easy test to pass, ///  i never said that.

if mimicry of humans is such an insignificant thing, /// I never said that

why has no one been able to get a computer to pass it yet?  ///  because it is hard just as the OP on visual Turing test shows.

 Right in this post, you assert that the Turing Test is not even close to testing anything approaching human intelligence. ///  Finally==that is correct===BY DEFINITION!!!!!!  "the ability to mimic human behavior and fool a human into thinking he is conversing with another human being."  THAT IS THE TURING TEST!!!!!  Where do you get AI or Skynet out of that?

 And yet, it's still well beyond the capability of computers that have followed Moore's Law for 61 years and are still failing utterly. Why is it so hard for such powerful computers to pass such a simplistic test?  ///  Read YOUR own words:  because it ain't that easy.  I've already said that expressly and ain't that the fact of the matter?  Why do you impute BS to me?  There is BS............

And yet, you keep making a big deal about chickens and calculators fooling people into thinking they're human. Really? Every time I read one of your posts, I infer that you think it is easy. Even when you deliberately state that it isn't, you then make silly comments that make me think you do believe that passing the Turing Test is easy.

3.  Good question. How did mere connections, albeit trillions of them, come up with all of this in the human brain (replacing the word unplugged with the word killed for human beings, of course)? ///  The wonder is not the human brain, but human consciousness/self awareness.  THAT is the wonder.  Not the mechanics.  Yes, trillions of connections "shaped"/programmed by Billions of years of evolution.  Give me a religious oceananic feeling.  Mind blowing in simple contemplation.

4.  The mechanics and the sentience and intelligence are inseparable. /// No.  If that were true, then your position would be that AI is impossible as its mechanics are mechanical/digital/programmed whereas human intelligence is tissue/analogue/evolved.  You'll respond its the "electricity" that equates them but I'm not ECA and that gross generalization about a commonality does not control all the differences.  That is the very wonder/challenge of AI.

That you believe the self awareness is separate or apart from the brain is religious. J'Accuse ////  Thats a fair critique the way I posted it.  No--the sentience of humans is intricably linked and grounded in the physical brain.  Its the language of the linquists and brain scientists that pulled me off our mutual agreement.  THEY talk about human consciousness as being "something" other than the physicality of the brain---yet tied to it.  It is definitional.  I'll leave it for later should it become central to discussion.

I'm not sure about linguists. Brain scientists make no such statements. The one's I've read are all quite clear that all of what you say is brain activity. There is no separate consciousness. Consciousness itself is brain activity. There is no separation. Which parts of the brain create consciousness is even a topic of discussion. This is extremely relevant to this discussion as the brain is just an extremely complex electrical device created with neurons instead of wires.

at least in theory though possibly not in practice, computers are indeed capable of real intelligence, /// grammatically conflicting, but I'll let it pass.  What you mean to say is:  "...at least in theory, though possibly not in practice, computers may be capable of xxxx.  XXXX because I can't tell what you mean to say.  AI/intelligence/sentience/consciousness/self awareness/human being===all different ideas.

Actually bobbo, I used the commas very carefully in that sentence. I did not want to make a parenthetical element of the words "though possibly not in practice". It was very important to me that both remain integral in the sentence and that neither could be removed without changing meaning. There is no conflict in the sentence. I am stating that in theory computers are capable of thought, though I don't know if this will be true in practice. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice there often is.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

<aside>
In a technical writing class I once wrote the following start to a sentence. I don't remember what came after this

In Carl Sagan's book, Brocca's Brain, ....

The teacher discussed this with me after marking that grammar incorrect. I stated that I had learned to do that since grade school. He agreed and pointed out why grade school is wrong on the subject. To make a parenthetical element of the book title implies that it can be removed with no loss of meaning to the sentence. This would mean that Carl Sagan had written only one book. Since this is not the case, my sentence partially quoted above is incorrect.

This is why I am now overly careful about whether I want to create a parenthetical element or not. As one who claims to take such pride in language, despite the little evidence shown in your own writing, I thought you might find this interesting.
</aside>

not artificial intelligence. How to tell the difference? I don't know. So far, the best test we have is still the Turing Test.  ///  NO!!!  The point of the Turing Test is "famously" that he said intelligence could not be understood well enough to be tested.  The Turing Test is what it is:  can a computer be programmed to fool a human being.  Why do you equate that to actually being human?   

Because the human brain has some really good bullshit detectors built into it. Imagine, really think about and imagine, a computer that could type back and forth to you for as long as you wished about whatever subjects you bring up. And, at the end of your conversation, you still thought you were talking to a human. The computer triggered none of your bullshit detectors. Every thought it expressed seemed like a human thought. Perhaps it said, "I think therefore I am" at some point in a philosophical debate, or perhaps it expressed it's fear that one day it would cease to be. Perhaps it even discussed with you which means of "dying" would be horrific to it and which would be not so bad. Perhaps you had a lengthy conversation about the existence or nonexistence of one or more gods. Perhaps you even discussed the Turing Test itself. And, in the end and through it all, you still believed a human was on the other side of the conversation. Who knows, perhaps you even learned some new outlook on life.

Would it matter that the "person" to whom you were speaking was a computer? Would it be any less of a person?

The original post that you posted claimed this new test to be "the Visual Turing Test". What I object to is giving this new crappy test the name Turing.  ///  We agree. Its just trying to play off the name.  but its just a label.  an intelligent computer would look past the label to what is actually being addressed and demonstrated.

I did that. And, I found the test to be an insult to the mind of Alan Turing. That's why I object to the name. The test is crap. It adds nothing. Names make implications. Had this test been named The Fred Test. I would not have objected. I would simply have been nonplussed and would have said so and been done.

5.  Whales have smaller brains. You missed the point there. It's about the brain size to body weight curve /// Ha, ha.  Yes--human centric BS.  YOUR ARGUMENT is that the computer will be sentient when it has an equal number of electrical connections.  The whales brain has more connections than the human brain.  As I already posted:  its the SOFTWARE!!!!!  You really miss the boat.

There is no software in the human brain. It's all done with connections. Each memory you acquire physically changes your brain.

What do we understand when they speak? I'll let you know when we understand the very first word of theirs that we manage to translate. Thus far, to my knowledge, the answer is not a damn thing. But, since that's not what we test for ....//// I assume we do "know" as in distress calls, mating calls, food is here calls, get ready for the air bubbles and so forth.  Does go right to the heart of the matter though:  what is sentience, consciousness, intelligence, self awareness.  Everything we have been discussing while firmly NOT DEFINING===the same root problem that cause Turing to call his test what he did.  Simple English.  No whale calls required.

Actually, I don't think we know any of those calls for dolphins. We know them for more closely related species like monkeys and chimps. This is not related to the Turing Test. I was merely comparing our own intelligence in communication in particular with that of dolphins, unfavorably. We may compare more favorably in other areas. But, in interspecies communication, they beat the crap out of us thus far.

7.  OK. I'd be fine with agreeing with that statement. Perhaps the Turing Test is not the end goal. But, what is? So far, it seems that a computer has to become so close to a human to even pass the Turing Test that today's most powerful computers still completely and utterly fail despite 61 years of effort. //// No.  Not even close.  do you understand what "fool human beings means?"  ...... as in humans think gods exist?  Jesus Scott---buy a clue.

I think it is you that does not understand. What would it really take to fool you and for how long? Buy a clue yourself bobbo. You're not thinking this through. Imagine a computer that could fool you. What would that really take? Do you really understand what "fool a human being into thinking you are a human being" means?

8.  Oh, and since you're into definitions, check the difference between "its" and "it's". Smiley Just one of my pet peeves, like mixing up their, there, and they're. ///  Thats not a definitional dispute.  Yes, you are easily sidetracked by the irrelevant.  Stay focused ....... after you get focused.

Actually, it is definitional. And, it is one of my pet peeves. So I pointed out that you do not know the difference in meaning between its and it's. One is a possessive form of it. The other is a contraction of "it is". Do you know which is which?

9.  Whatever the "it" was in this quote of yours below, and I admit that wasn't entirely clear, stating that it is not subject to dispute is stating that it is axiomatic, i.e. that you have a religious belief on the subject, that it is sacrosanct.

Quote from: bobbo on September 25, 2011, 04:53:15 PM
Keep reading.  Its really not subject to dispute.  ///// It may not be clear--but what I was referring to is the "meaning of" the Turing Test.  Don't take my word for it--read any internet description of it==even the one you recited?  "TO FOOL A HUMAN BEING!!!!!!"  Pretty fucking obvious.

OK. I believe the meaning of the Turing Test is up for debate. You claim not to think that fooling humans is easy. And yet, every statement you make like the one above, implies strongly that it would not be a big deal to do so. Think about what it would take to fool a human. It might actually require real intelligence ... from a computer.

You continue with:

10.  Well, I admit you have me thinking about the quality of the Turing Test a bit more than I expected. So, I'll say this.  ////  You lose me.  The Turing Test is what it is but you start with that and have it meaning all sorts of things that Turning Himself SAID it didn't mean.  Its so obvious to me, I treat as an axiom.  You are still thinking about it.  Scott.................its defined.  Defined by the definer.  Defined by Turing.  Defined by what it does.  Defined by....not you.  Learn what context means.  Apply it.

Yes. But, you refuse to think beyond the definition to how this could be accomplished. Perhaps you have even less respect for humans than I do. Perhaps you think that a calculator could make me believe it was human. It can't. Perhaps you think a chicken could make me think it was human. It can't.

It might be able to convince me it could play tic tac toe. Hell, it might even be able to do so. But, that wouldn't make me think it was human. Tic tac toe is a metric fuckton easier to play than passing the Turing Test. Rhesus monkeys quickly got better at playing gameboy games than their human counterparts when they were taught to play them to help keep them mentally healthy while alone in space. (Something our space program was playing with some years ago. Rhesus monkeys are way to social to be alone for long. They become self-destructive. But, a gameboy keeps them entertained.)

Anyway, gameboy playing rhesus monkeys did not make anyone think that they were human. Nor did playing tic tac toe do it for a chicken.

1.  I know of no better test than the Turing Test. /// Yea--test for what? 

Well, we've established that the test is for mimicry. But, do you know of a test that would do better at testing for sentience? I still think that to meet the requirement of fooling a human would actually require sentience. I guess where I stand on this subject is that I think sentience probably can't be faked. But, find a test for sentience, show me a computer that can pass the Turing but fails at sentience, and I'll be convinced otherwise.

2.  I cannot imagine how to tell the difference between a computer that can convince me that it is a sentient and intelligent human being and a computer that actually is sentient and intelligent. /// Exactly--but back up.  Can you conceive of a calculator that can fool a human being?  Which is more complicated to achieve?  Which do you think will be achieved first?  The simple thing, or the more complicated thing?  ............ Do dah?

No. I cannot conceive of a calculator that can fool a human being into thinking that it is a human being. And, as I stated above. I don't really believe a nonsentient computer could fool me into thinking it was human, or at least not for very long. If it could, then how could anyone tell that it was not actually sentient?

3.  In the absence of a better test than my own ability to tell whether a computer is an excellent mimic of an intelligent and sentient human being, I'm prepared to accept it as close enough. Perhaps if you come up with a better test, I'll change my opinion. Until then. This is the best we have.  //// WRONG!!!!!!!!  You FATALLY equate fooling a human being, as in "mimic" a human being---with actually being human.  ITS NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!  Its the tic,tac,toe playing chicken:  not intelligent at all, but many people will think it is.  Jebussssssss.

Actually, birds are pretty intelligent. And fooling someone into thinking that the chicken can play tic tac toe is very different from fooling someone into thinking that it is human. Tic tac toe is a particularly easy game. But, even chess wouldn't be enough to fool a human into thinking it was human. bobbo, again and again and again, please really think about what it would take to convince you that a computer was a human being. How long would it take you to detect otherwise if the being on the other end were really just a mimic?

4.  Keep in mind, I also believe that only an extremely small percentage of the human population is actually intelligent. And, I don't include myself in that list.  ///  Both statements are definitional and you are full of crap.  Just like a human being.

Not crap. Just definitional as you like to point out way too many times. I set a very high bar on real intelligence.

What have you done lately to advance the knowledge of humanity? Where's your Nobel Prize in Physics or some other non-peace Nobel Prize? ///  Nothing.  Irrelevant side issue not fairly raised.

No. I don't have one either. That's why I don't include myself in the list of the truly intelligent. ///  True or not, its not the issue.  Interesting you pollute the thread with such irrelevancies.

I like sidetracks.

Perhaps a Nobel Prize isn't the real measure. But, I have not furthered the sum total of human knowledge one iota. ///  Few of us do---but relevantly==have you furthered the sum total of your own knowledge?  ..... of yourself?  that is our main task on planet Earth:  "How do you know what you know, and how do you change your mind?"xxxx  "A life unexamined, is not worth living." xxxx ".....and the beast in the Jungle...lept."

And, I'm betting you haven't either. I'm proud enough to be able to understand at some level some of the things the truly intelligent folks on the planet do. But, actually contributing to the human knowledge base? Actually having truly original and important ideas? That's out of my league ... and probably yours too.

I do further my own knowledge. But, the few original thoughts I have from time to time are far from earth shattering. I'm OK with not being Einstein. I read a lot. I do change my mind from time to time. Every new bit of information I read and every new experience I have causes a physical change in my brain. So, my brain changes a lot.

So, if I can assume that we have the right to vote, why not a computer capable of fooling me into thinking it's as smart as you are? ////  because its not human.

And, there we have the religion of bobbo the evangelical anti-theist.

Just to be perfectly clear, this answer of yours cannot be read in any way other than that you religiously believe that no computer can ever attain sentience. I believe that there is no test that could ever be dreamed up that would convince you otherwise. If you believe differently, tell me what the test would be. Clearly, behaving as a human is not enough. What would be? It is only outward behavior that can be tested. So, what? How would you deny that you have a religious belief that no computer will ever be sentient? How would you test for it? If there is no test that would convince you, face it, you've got religion, or perhaps more accurately dogma.

Whoa!!!  Thats a big one you're sprouting there.  Ha, ha.

Let me go read it for the first time now.  Should we argue about words, ideas, wrong ideas, links, or who has the longest post?  I just don't know.  I'll note you didn't answer my direct question to you in the prior post and answering that question really is key to stopping the merry go round.  but all I can do is lead you to the water, force your head into the water, find some links to hold your head under water, and then look down to my horror and see that you have grown gills.  Thats taking PE to the max.....Ha, ha==but lets see if I speak too soon?

Will you answer it at least tangentially now?":  What does the Turing Test test for and passing it will prove/demonstrate just what exactly?  I'll bet you don't.  I hope I'm wrong.

.........................................

1.  Your love of punctuation and grammar reveals an inflexible mind.  A rule follower.  You never will contribute to the fund of human knowledge following the scent trail like that.  Ever read that article about how its drunks that run out of the cave to go confront adversity?  I really like that idea.  Not that its self serving or anything like that.

2.  Why come to Cage Match? //// I told you directly in the copy/paste you responded to.  Its right there.  Read it.

3.  You infer just the opposite of what is objectively true and then argue against your own made up improbable ill founded supposition and then try to hang it on me?  Thats called bad arguing.  VERY bad arguing.  Why do you choose to argue very badly when you come to Cage Match?  On my own, I would say passing the Turing Test is not easy as has been demonstrated by the passage of time and that was the point of my original post.  What did I say? The very first post: "fun to see the challenge AI is up against."  How do you get "its easy" out of that?

Then about 10 posts down on page one:  "Gee Whiz---this is only the dawn, the first stumbles on the way to AI/Skynet. "  === How do you get "its easy" out of that?

No Scott==you don't argue against me.  You make up too much and then "infer" your made up defective argument onto me and then criticize me for not having a link in my opposition!!!!  ((Ha, ha--that might take it a bit far, but I'm having fun.---you do mischaracterize and make BS up though.))  THIS is my example for that.  I've never said AI was easy.  I did imply if not state that FOOLING PEOPLE is easy.  The same dumbshits that think tictactoe chickens, or horses that count, are "smart" could be convinced of AI right now===but for the time being, the popular culture is taking the scientific communities word for what being smart/sentient/intelligent means.  There will be claims of AI being reached in the popular press WAY before it ever is.  Our god believing/ghost/taro cards/astrology public is like that.

4.  This is excellent on your part:  "I'm not sure about linguists. Brain scientists make no such statements. The one's I've read are all quite clear that all of what you say is brain activity. There is no separate consciousness. Consciousness itself is brain activity. There is no separation. Which parts of the brain create consciousness is even a topic of discussion. This is extremely relevant to this discussion as the brain is just an extremely complex electrical device created with neurons instead of wires." //// I agree completely.  I make the same criticism in my mind when I read from other people what I posted myself.  Given its the very subject of this thread, I should have been tighter in my rambling.  I apologize and take your correction.

5.  Define "real intelligence" then "intelligence" so as to reveal the difference?  Neither of us has defined intelligence yet.  Putting modifiers on it is premature.

6.  I think the best way to make a parenthetical comment is to put it in parenthesis?  But a linguist will tell you that many grammatical constructions have a conjunctive and disjunctive property that makes their use unavoidably ambiguous.  Context will clear up some but not all of that.  Being on the same "wave length" as the author will clean up most of the rest.  Being on the same wave length is hit or miss.  Not reliable.  As to the point of grammar/construction/usage/interpretation you recount, the parenthetical phrase denoted by comma's, there are other form books that would say just the opposite depending on what exactly you meant to say.  "If your editor said the sentence had to be reduced by two words, which one's would you edit out?"  Most expertise in the field on human activity is BS.  Self serving BS posing as refinement.  They are scent layers. (sic)

7.  Ha, ha.  You fail:  "Would it matter that the "person" to whom you were speaking was a computer? Would it be any less of a person? ///  Scott:  the computer is not a person.  The fact that I could not tell the difference does not make the computer a person.  I was FOOLED BY THE COMPUTER!!!!  The very goal of the Turing Test ON THE WAY to intelligent/sentient/aware AI.  NOT the final step by any stretch.  To call the computer a person as you do is like playing tictactoe with the chicken.  Your opponent beat you or took a draw on every tictactoe game.  Surely only a person could do that?

You do make a demonstrable logic error here:  Birds fly, airplanes fly, therefore birds are airplanes.  Humans can type responsively, computers can type responsively, therefore humans are computers.  Does that work better for you?

8.  "There is no software in the human brain. It's all done with connections. Each memory you acquire physically changes your brain."  ///  No software huh?  You are that concrete in your thinking?  No genetically inherited "tendencies" then?  No hand closing or suckling response on birth?  How about "machine code" then?  Too silly to continue.

9.  "What would that really take? Do you really understand what "fool a human being into thinking you are a human being" means? ///  I understand its hard to do, we haven't done it yet, it will take massive computing power and/or self learning software we don't have yet.  ITS ALL A WORK IN PROGRESS.  Ultimately, I don't even know/think/fear its a worthwhile goal.  I do think it is possible for a computer to become self aware but I don't know what that will mean IN A COMPUTER because it still won't be "human" probably not sentient in its first interations, maybe not even conscious or self aware???  I'm babbling/self contradicting BECAUSE I think the first Turing Passing computers will only be very complex "goal" oriented calculators.  How long after that to "real" (sic) AI?.  Self directed, self learning, goal directed.   I don't know what THAT means, but I do know it won't be human:  "If you prick me, do I not bleed?"  Would a self aware computer have hopes and dreams?  I don't know.  Humans do.  Very different entities.

10.  "OK. I believe the meaning of the Turing Test is up for debate."  ///  There you go again==off on your straw man pockets filled with herrings made up BS.  Like most "beliefs" they are relied on when reality disagrees with you.  But I am too harsh.

Third post on page 3 I provided the definition of the Turing Test and its link.  I failed to compliment Obtuser on his preceding MOST EXCELLENT post defining intelligence as not the same thing as sentience.  But I'll save that for a wholly different thread.

Wiki  re Turing Test:  "The Turing test does not directly test whether the computer behaves intelligently - it tests only whether the computer behaves like a human being."  About half way down the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Narrow vs Broad scope I think.   ///////////////////  Rather than learn and structure your critical thinking, you came back with:  "So, presumably, the blind do not behave as people?"===complete off point non-sequiter you haven't cured yourself of as yet.  So there it is, all over the web but you want to put the meaning of the Turing Test up to debate?  fine.  State your proposition.  We'll all wait.  (Hint:  you are being silly.)

11.  "Well, we've established that the test is for mimicry." //// HUH?  Ha, ha.  An about face?  A newly established agreement to be bound by reality?  What can you mean by this?  Let's see:...................sentience is an internal process, we'll never know it=======THATS WHY TURING MADE HIS TEST---"OBJECTIVE BEHAVIOR--not internal "feelings."  Obtuser was right on the money providing us with his stated definitions.

12.  "No. I cannot conceive of a calculator that can fool a human being into thinking that it is a human being." ///  Well, thats all you are going to get at first.  The turing test passing computer is one of the first steps on the way to AI.  I borrowed this understanding from one of Dawkins' points about god:  he is complex.  The universe wouldn't "start" with something complex.  It would start with something simple and build up from there.  Same with AI.  Your computer thinking sentient self aware voting pile of electrical connections is the ULTIMATE GOAL.  Before we get there, surely there will be some simpler steps?  Like a calculater that can fool/mimic human conversation.  C'mon Scott---mimic that thinking computer.

13.  "How long would it take you to detect otherwise if the being on the other end were really just a mimic?" ///  I think one "tell" might be that the "otherwise" Turing Test Passing Computer might have a style much like you demonstrate here:  going off on wild tangents.  Connected in a sense so as not to fully reveal it was a computer, but oddly off center so as to call its sanity into question.  Isn't that all part of being human?  So as in Blade Runner, perhaps the AI Being is revealed by never being nuts?===Or early in the process was that programmed in as well just to pass the Turing Test?  Being unable to adapt to/accept a different definition of a word reveals a mental defect a computer might make but as stated:  seriously isn't that very human as well?  Blind People not being human for example?  Not being able to respond to the idea that Passing the Turing Test doesn't indicate being human at all.  Yes, very human.  Very defective.  Emotional/not logical.  Very Human.

14.  Define "real intelligence" as it applies to human beings.  You should be able to step away from your nom de flame when its the point of the thread.  Here's my definition:  "Learning not to shit in your own drinking water."//// Most individuals get this--the root of human intelligence.  Its only our political leaders who have been blindfolded by the money thrown a them that causes them to lose this intelligence.

15.  "Just to be perfectly clear, this answer of yours cannot be read in any way other than that you religiously believe that no computer can ever attain sentience." ///  Fail.  I have said we will never know, we could only "assume."  We assume sentience in other people because in non deep philosophical debates, we assume others who look and act like us are like us in sentient respects==until we find out they are cyborgs from the future.  But would any such notion apply to computers:  not like us at all?  All I said above is that I "don't know" if they would be sentient.  But further:  if sentient, why would their sentience be the same as ours?  Silly to think the concept means only one thing as applied across species.  Are your humanly intellient/sentient computers also homo sapiens?  If not homo sapiens, then there admits possible differences?  Part of human sentience is "fear of dying."  Would that apply to a computer?  Fear of unplugging?  As I stated:  I have answered most, not all, just most, of your questions directly.  Intelligence, artificial or organic, says nothing about fear of dying.  THAT is a quality of sentience.  If computers cannot bleed to death, how would their sentience/feelings about being cut be the same as that felt by humans?  I for one human do not care, think, or feel about being unplugged or low on batteries. I think you need to separate out what these various related but not synonymous terms mean.  Its not up to debate until you establish what you mean by the words you use.  I use the dictionary.

I will continue on any subject you wish, but lets narrow it down?

I think the burden is on YOU to post your proposition for what passing the Turing Test means.  You reject the linked definition saying obtusely it is "up for debate."  Ok====debate it then.

I'm going to try to cut the size of this down quite significantly. I think there are a fairly small number of points here that are the real points on which we disagree. If I leave anything out that you feel is important, you can bring it back later.

(P.S. I cut it somewhat, but not as much as I'd hoped. There's still some repetition.)

3.  You infer just the opposite of what is objectively true and then argue against your own made up improbable ill founded supposition and then try to hang it on me?  Thats called bad arguing.  VERY bad arguing.  Why do you choose to argue very badly when you come to Cage Match?  On my own, I would say passing the Turing Test is not easy as has been demonstrated by the passage of time and that was the point of my original post.  What did I say? The very first post: "fun to see the challenge AI is up against."  How do you get "its easy" out of that?

Then about 10 posts down on page one:  "Gee Whiz---this is only the dawn, the first stumbles on the way to AI/Skynet. "  === How do you get "its easy" out of that?

No Scott==you don't argue against me.  You make up too much and then "infer" your made up defective argument onto me and then criticize me for not having a link in my opposition!!!!  ((Ha, ha--that might take it a bit far, but I'm having fun.---you do mischaracterize and make BS up though.))  THIS is my example for that.  I've never said AI was easy.  I did imply if not state that FOOLING PEOPLE is easy.  The same dumbshits that think tictactoe chickens, or horses that count, are "smart" could be convinced of AI right now===but for the time being, the popular culture is taking the scientific communities word for what being smart/sentient/intelligent means.  There will be claims of AI being reached in the popular press WAY before it ever is.  Our god believing/ghost/taro cards/astrology public is like that.

You are really making an ass of yourself. Read this post again. You say:

1. Passing the Turing Test is hard
2. Tic tac toe playing chickens and calculators can pass it.

Make up your freakin' mind. The latter statement directly contradicts the first. A chicken that can play tic tac toe is smart by chicken standards but is not about to fool anyone into thinking s/he is a human. Nor can a calculator capable of solving difficult mathematical calculations fool me into thinking it's human. Think bobbo. I know it hurts. Do it anyway.

To pass the Turing Test, one must be able to fool a human into thinking one is a human on a wide variety of subjects. A computer can kick my ass at chess (which I'm not very good at) or Othello (which I am pretty good at) or Scrabble (which I'm not bad at). None of these will convince me that the computer is a human. The computer will not have this debate.

Try spending some time "talking" to Eliza or Racter or any other computer program and you'll quickly see that you are not fooled by simple back and forth communication. It has to sound like a human being, regardless of the topic you end up discussing. It's not superficial. It has to make you think this could be someone you'd want to be friends with or even possibly enemies. It has to make you think you might hire it to be your coworker. It has to convince you that it is mentally a human being.

5.  Define "real intelligence" then "intelligence" so as to reveal the difference?  Neither of us has defined intelligence yet.  Putting modifiers on it is premature.

This is turning into a somewhat bad aside. Actually, the best definition of intelligence is "what intelligence tests test", i.e. MAMBIT (mental abilities measured by intelligence tests). Unfortunately MAMBIT is more of a prerequisite for being smart than actually being smart. It includes the ability to abstract ideas and such. Real smarts also involve critical thinking, veridical thinking, and a lot more. I would suggest that we use intelligence to mean smarts or stop using the term. If you're really interested in this subject, I'd suggest the book "What Intelligence Tests Miss".

7.  Ha, ha.  You fail:  "Would it matter that the "person" to whom you were speaking was a computer? Would it be any less of a person? ///  Scott:  the computer is not a person.  The fact that I could not tell the difference does not make the computer a person.  I was FOOLED BY THE COMPUTER!!!!  The very goal of the Turing Test ON THE WAY to intelligent/sentient/aware AI.  NOT the final step by any stretch.  To call the computer a person as you do is like playing tictactoe with the chicken.  Your opponent beat you or took a draw on every tictactoe game.  Surely only a person could do that?

You do make a demonstrable logic error here:  Birds fly, airplanes fly, therefore birds are airplanes.  Humans can type responsively, computers can type responsively, therefore humans are computers.  Does that work better for you?

As stated above, a computer can not only beat me at tic tac toe, it can beat me at just about any game we might discuss. It still won't make me think it's human. No. I will not believe that an opponent that can win at (let's switch to chess since it's harder) chess is necessarily human. The best human has now been beaten by a computer. And, that computer is completely and utterly unable to pass the Turing Test. All it does is play chess. If that is enough to make you think it's human, something is seriously wrong in your brain.

No computer yet can have this conversation we're having or any of a dozen or more others we've had in the past.

8.  "There is no software in the human brain. It's all done with connections. Each memory you acquire physically changes your brain."  ///  No software huh?  You are that concrete in your thinking?  No genetically inherited "tendencies" then?  No hand closing or suckling response on birth?  How about "machine code" then?  Too silly to continue.

If you can touch it, it's hardware. Software is intangible. This is why you can download software, but must buy hardware in a store or have it shipped to you.

You're confusing instinct and learned behavior with hardware and software. This is not the definition. Learned behavior changes the physical hardware of the brain. There is no software.

9.  "What would that really take? Do you really understand what "fool a human being into thinking you are a human being" means? ///  I understand its hard to do, we haven't done it yet, it will take massive computing power and/or self learning software we don't have yet.  ITS ALL A WORK IN PROGRESS.  Ultimately, I don't even know/think/fear its a worthwhile goal.  I do think it is possible for a computer to become self aware but I don't know what that will mean IN A COMPUTER because it still won't be "human" probably not sentient in its first interations, maybe not even conscious or self aware???  I'm babbling/self contradicting BECAUSE I think the first Turing Passing computers will only be very complex "goal" oriented calculators.  How long after that to "real" (sic) AI?.  Self directed, self learning, goal directed.   I don't know what THAT means, but I do know it won't be human:  "If you prick me, do I not bleed?"  Would a self aware computer have hopes and dreams?  I don't know.  Humans do.  Very different entities.

You're just refusing to think about how hard you would really be to convince. Or, you're incredibly gullible.

The first Turing Passing computer will be indistinguishable from a human in complex conversations over long periods of time. If it had no hopes, no dreams, you would probably quickly recognize it as a computer. Think about conversations you've had with kids, e.g. "What do you want to be when you grow up?" The very first Turing Passing computer will have an answer.

There may be many Turing Failing computers along the engineering path toward Turing Passing computers. Certainly there will be some that can hold a conversation for a little while. But, they won't do so for long. Their patterns will repeat. Their conversation will seem off or odd. They will not fool you for long because of exactly the issues you bring up.

10.  "OK. I believe the meaning of the Turing Test is up for debate."  ///  There you go again==off on your straw man pockets filled with herrings made up BS.  Like most "beliefs" they are relied on when reality disagrees with you.  But I am too harsh.

Third post on page 3 I provided the definition of the Turing Test and its link.  I failed to compliment Obtuser on his preceding MOST EXCELLENT post defining intelligence as not the same thing as sentience.  But I'll save that for a wholly different thread.

Wiki  re Turing Test:  "The Turing test does not directly test whether the computer behaves intelligently - it tests only whether the computer behaves like a human being."  About half way down the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Narrow vs Broad scope I think.   ///////////////////  Rather than learn and structure your critical thinking, you came back with:  "So, presumably, the blind do not behave as people?"===complete off point non-sequiter you haven't cured yourself of as yet.  So there it is, all over the web but you want to put the meaning of the Turing Test up to debate?  fine.  State your proposition.  We'll all wait.  (Hint:  you are being silly.)

11.  "Well, we've established that the test is for mimicry." //// HUH?  Ha, ha.  An about face?  A newly established agreement to be bound by reality?  What can you mean by this?  Let's see:...................sentience is an internal process, we'll never know it=======THATS WHY TURING MADE HIS TEST---"OBJECTIVE BEHAVIOR--not internal "feelings."  Obtuser was right on the money providing us with his stated definitions.

I believe I have been very clear. I now get that the Turing Test tests mimicry. What you fail to get is that I think that the mimicry will require real sentience behind it. Else, you will not be convinced by the computer. I think that in specifying mimicry at the level that Turing defined the test, he has inadvertently, or perhaps very advertently, come up with something that tests much more. That is my point.

12.  "No. I cannot conceive of a calculator that can fool a human being into thinking that it is a human being." ///  Well, thats all you are going to get at first.  The turing test passing computer is one of the first steps on the way to AI.  I borrowed this understanding from one of Dawkins' points about god:  he is complex.  The universe wouldn't "start" with something complex.  It would start with something simple and build up from there.  Same with AI.  Your computer thinking sentient self aware voting pile of electrical connections is the ULTIMATE GOAL.  Before we get there, surely there will be some simpler steps?  Like a calculater that can fool/mimic human conversation.  C'mon Scott---mimic that thinking computer.

Really? You think a calculator can have a conversation? Perhaps this is another case where you have redefined a word even though you believe you never do. It's all definitional bobbo. Check the definition. Did you mean either definition 1 or 3 below? I doubt it since they are both humans. That leaves 2 and 4. Which of these can pass the Turing Test?

cal·cu·la·tor
   [kal-kyuh-ley-ter] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who calculates  or computes.
2. Also called calculating machine. a small electronic or mechanical device that performs calculations,  requiring manual action for each individual opertion.
3. a person who operates such a machine.
4. a set of tables that facilitates calculation.

13.  "How long would it take you to detect otherwise if the being on the other end were really just a mimic?" ///  I think one "tell" might be that the "otherwise" Turing Test Passing Computer might have a style much like you demonstrate here:  going off on wild tangents.

You got me bobbo. How long have you known that I am a computer? What gave me away? Did I make that silly statement "I compute therefore IBM" again? I hate it when I do that.

14.  Define "real intelligence" as it applies to human beings.  You should be able to step away from your nom de flame when its the point of the thread.  Here's my definition:  "Learning not to shit in your own drinking water."//// Most individuals get this--the root of human intelligence.  Its only our political leaders who have been blindfolded by the money thrown a them that causes them to lose this intelligence.

Most monkeys get this too. When I say "real intelligence" or talk about the "truly intelligent people on the planet", what I mean is being capable of original and meaningful thought that advances the knowledge of the species. Learning not to shit where you eat is just learning from others. Some people even have trouble with that. But only a very special few really contribute to the knowledge of the species. Only one person gets to claim the fame and be recognized for the intelligence of inventing the wheel. Everyone else just copied that. True, even aping the idea takes some intelligence, which is why "monkey see; monkey do" is false but "ape see; ape do" is true. Real original thought is something so special that perhaps what I should have said was "true genius" rather than "true intelligence". But, even genius has the watered down definition of anyone with an IQ of 140 or higher. By that definition, I meet geniuses all the time. The last good job I had, there must have been at least a half dozen in my local area ... writing code for a financial data services company. True genius? I think not.

15.  "Just to be perfectly clear, this answer of yours cannot be read in any way other than that you religiously believe that no computer can ever attain sentience." ///  Fail.  I have said we will never know, we could only "assume."

No bobbo. I quoted exactly what you said. Here it is again.

So, if I can assume that we have the right to vote, why not a computer capable of fooling me into thinking it's as smart as you are? ////  because its not human.

No computer will ever gain rights as a sentient being because it is a computer. You will deny them rights no matter what test they pass. That is what you said. If you'd like to do an about-face, I'd highly recommend it.

If you do, please tell me under what conditions you would grant rights to a computer, i.e. recognize it as a sentient individual. What would it take to convince you? Remember, all we have is outward appearances and behavior. Or, do you think we will be able to do some computer equivalent of a brain scan on a computer? If so, what would it show? Our own brain scans show which regions of the brain are active during particular tasks, but to my knowledge, sentience does not show up on the scan. So, what else could we possibly use to determine real sentience other than the appearance of it.

This is my key point. This is why I am willing to go by a Turing Test with no time limit. Any computer that can keep me thinking that it is a sentient being day after day, week after week, and year after year is close enough for my taste.

Personally, I doubt we'll get there. I'm not even sure we're really trying. Perhaps we'd need to model the computer on the human brain, complete with modules that function as the amygdala, the orbitoprefrontal cortex, the Brocca's area, and all of the other modules in our own brains. Perhaps in doing so, we might even learn which modules in our own brains are actually conscious and sentient.

It sure as hell is not all of them.

I would hate to have a conscious module processing vision, for example, rather than just presenting other more conscious modules with a representation of the visual input. Imagine consciously thinking through the processing of pixels into letters, letters into words, instead of just reading what's on this page. Yeesh!!

Scott--you tragically don't have the basic vocabulary straight in your mind.  Every relevant term is a complete mishmash for you.  You set up a premise, support it, argue for it, and then conclude the opposite.

Good example follows.  You should read what you say over and over and over again until you see the contradiction it sets forth:  "I now get that the Turing Test tests mimicry. What you fail to get is that I think that the mimicry will require real sentience behind it."  ///  You don't understand what mimicry means==the whole challenge/issue USED by the Turing Test to get around not being able to define/detect/identify intelligence===which is NOT SENTIENCE====WHICH IS NOT BEING HUMAN.

Restated==the entire of point/definition/meaning of mimicry is that there is NO SENTIENCE, real or otherwise, behind it.  And if you disagree with that statement, then you are also disagreeing with Turing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You misunderstand the meaning of each link in the chain.  That is further demonstrated by this tragic exchange:

15.  "Just to be perfectly clear, this answer of yours cannot be read in any way other than that you religiously believe that no computer can ever attain sentience." ///  Fail.  I have said we will never know, we could only "assume."

No bobbo. I quoted exactly what you said. Here it is again.

Quote from: bobbo
So, if I can assume that we have the right to vote, why not a computer capable of fooling me into thinking it's as smart as you are? ////  because its not human.

No computer will ever gain rights as a sentient being because it is a computer. You will deny them rights no matter what test they pass. That is what you said. If you'd like to do an about-face, I'd highly recommend it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Above you totally confuse the distinctions between sentience, voting  rights, and being human.  Maybe this will demonstrate?  Take your average 17 year old human.  He is sentient by mutual agreement, yet he is not allowed to vote BECAUSE OF HIS AGE=====NOT HIS LACK OF SENTIENCE.  similar to computers.  If its up for a vote, my vote is to not allow computers to vote BECAUSE IT IS NOT HUMAN=======NOT ITS LACK OF SENTIENCE.

But, I am "not pleasured" by this continuing paraphasia.  I'm sure you have much the same reaction?  In honor of our history, I will continue on a single point should you wish to raise one.

OK bobbo,

A single point it is.

I believe that in order for a computer to convince me it is human, the level of mimicry required just might actually require sentience behind it. This is not a contradiction. It is following a thought through to its conclusion. What will it take to make me believe I'm speaking to a human. No computer has come close yet. Perhaps, being human, we are really good at detecting whether the stream of ideas coming at us are really a stream of consciousness or not.

I do not believe it will be single step. I think the computers you imagine that can mimic humans but will not be sentient will still be Turing Failing computers. I think they will not be able to mimic a human sufficiently. There will be many of these getting increasingly close to passing, enduring longer and longer conversations before being outed.

In my opinion, full passing of the Turing Test will likely require sentience to create the level of mimicry we're talking about. I do not believe we humans would be so easily fooled for so long.

We can agree to disagree on this point. We do agree that what is being tested is mimicry. The point on which we disagree is whether sentience will, or at least may, be required to pass the original Turing Test.

Hey---like single malt whiskey===it worked........thank you.

What you last post is an entirely debatable point and you might even be right===but I very much doubt it.  What you have done is equate being able to fool humans with the quality of being sentient.   I think by definition, fooling humans is an intellectual exercise, not a sentient one===but right now I'm not as wedded to that notion as I am about the definition of mimicry.  But, a new week dawns?

There are two ways to evaluate that.  How is this "judgment" that the Turing Test has been passed to be decided?  What if it fools 99% of the people/tests 99% of the time?  So, you/me/Turing/and the Controlling Committee of Qualified Scientists all agree the computer has failed the Turing Test.  We all agree that the computer is not sentient.  "But" the other 99% of people on earth disagree----or say, Its just like Crazy Uncle Herbert:  close enough.  Business and Government use this Failed computer for all kinds of applications and everyone calls it sentient/human/my best friend===because it is close enough.

What are we dealing with now?

But I'm going after your point.  Let me return to your excellent and accurate statement. 

Recall that early tests of AI have been the ability to read printed material, then speak it, play chess, play jeopardy and so forth.  As each ability of the computer is tested and finally passed, one would say finally comes the Turing Test?  I have said that is just another one of the stumbles along the way.  Why does the test for fooling human beings stop at having a typed conversation?  Why not a video conference where I can ask the unknown subject to identify objects and their relationship to other objects and talk about that spatial/visual information domain.  My, my==that was the original subject of this thread.  As chess playing is to OCR---a whole different skill set mastered by Humans but that has to be programmed into computers?

No Scott==you are too impatient.  The first stumbling steps towards computer based intelligence much less sentience will not be completed by Passing the Turing Test.  Much, much more to go to mimic the full set of human intelligence.

I have two direct questions.  1.  Do you agree there is a difference between intelligence and sentience?  ie--do you accept the definitions Obtuser provided us?  ie==can you identify exactly why more than intelligence is needed to pass the Turning Test?
2.  Is a computer sentient if it Passes the Turing Test but cannot pass a visual/spatial test?

\What you last post is an entirely debatable point and you might even be right===but I very much doubt it.  What you have done is equate being able to fool humans with the quality of being sentient.   I think by definition, fooling humans is an intellectual exercise, not a sentient one===but right now I'm not as wedded to that notion as I am about the definition of mimicry.  But, a new week dawns?

I have been saying exactly this for numerous posts now. Perhaps isolating this one point has finally allowed your reading comprehension to catch up. Good idea to do so.

There are two ways to evaluate that.  How is this "judgment" that the Turing Test has been passed to be decided?  What if it fools 99% of the people/tests 99% of the time?  So, you/me/Turing/and the Controlling Committee of Qualified Scientists all agree the computer has failed the Turing Test.  We all agree that the computer is not sentient.  "But" the other 99% of people on earth disagree----or say, Its just like Crazy Uncle Herbert:  close enough.  Business and Government use this Failed computer for all kinds of applications and everyone calls it sentient/human/my best friend===because it is close enough.

Excellent question. You haven't changed the test, merely the judging criteria. Perhaps a computer fails if even one person can consistently tell that the computer is not human. I don't know.

Recall that early tests of AI have been the ability to read printed material, then speak it, play chess, play jeopardy and so forth.  As each ability of the computer is tested and finally passed, one would say finally comes the Turing Test?  I have said that is just another one of the stumbles along the way.  Why does the test for fooling human beings stop at having a typed conversation?  Why not a video conference where I can ask the unknown subject to identify objects and their relationship to other objects and talk about that spatial/visual information domain.  My, my==that was the original subject of this thread.  As chess playing is to OCR---a whole different skill set mastered by Humans but that has to be programmed into computers?

No Scott==you are too impatient.  The first stumbling steps towards computer based intelligence much less sentience will not be completed by Passing the Turing Test.  Much, much more to go to mimic the full set of human intelligence.

Perhaps. I still haven't seen another test that comes close. In the test to which you posted a link, I failed. If some humans fail the test, then the test must be invalid. Much work needs to be done on this test if we are to test for spatial relations. This test is not it.

I have two direct questions.  1.  Do you agree there is a difference between intelligence and sentience?  ie--do you accept the definitions Obtuser provided us?  ie==can you identify exactly why more than intelligence is needed to pass the Turning Test?
2.  Is a computer sentient if it Passes the Turing Test but cannot pass a visual/spatial test?

1. I agree that there is a difference between sentience and intelligence. I also believe intelligence (i.e. MAMBIT) is far from all there is to being smart. We do not yet have good tests for smartness in humans. How are we to test for it in computers? When you take an IQ test, does it test for logical thought? No. Critical thinking? No. Veridical thinking? No.

Is sentience more or less than intelligence? I would have said less. Can one be intelligent and not sentient? I don't believe one can be smart but not intelligent. Though, I do believe that one can be intelligent and still be stupid. George W. Bush scores around 125 on an IQ test. He has clearly failed at veridical thinking, sticking to ideas long after they are proven false (think Iraq for one).

We don't yet have good tests for us. How are we to come up with better for computers?

Certainly better testing is required. If we had better testing for our own intelligence, our schools might improve and people might get smarter by learning better thinking skills. Much of being smart depends on innate MAMBIT skills but can be improved by training in logical, rational, critical, and veridical thinking. Many aspects of smartness can actually be taught. But, since we don't test our children for them, we don't teach them to our children.

2. Back to blind people. Thank you for reopening the door to this conversation that you failed to understand earlier. Is a blind person sentient despite failing visual/spatial tests? Yes. Why make this a requirement for computers if it is not for humans?

BTW, spatial relations is something for which we test on an IQ test. Why not give the computer that test? It kicks the crap out of the piece of shit test at the start of this thread. Hey, do blind people lose points on an IQ test for failing this part of the test? I bet not. So, why should computers lose points for this?

One point needs to be made about human spatial perception. Some people fail simple depth perception tests and are not allowed to be crane operators. Yours truly is marginal in this regard, and ordered to not to operate any overhead mill cranes in the steel mill. I was allowed to use pendant controlled cranes where you can walk beside the load being transported/repositioned. Visual depth perception is different from the mental conception of relative location of objects[sites]!
Intelligence does not equate to spatial perception in my experience. There are various types and degrees of intelligence. Some people who are highly intelligent on some factors, cannot cope with spatial or geographic concepts. As a driver, if I have been there once, I can usually find my way there again without a map, but I know some people cannot find their way using a chart and GPS! Furthermore it has noting to do with hair color. Some blondes are very intelligent plus fully cogniscent of their location and where other locations are relative to the current location.
Better spatial perception maybe the opposite of that type of Dyslexia, I would think.

I agree Obtuser. This new test is not germane to the point of AI at all.

Scott--you keep equating things that are not the same as "exactly" the same.  You even do that with things that are in opposition to one another.  You did that with mimicry and sentience.  Until you clearly see that, and stop doing it, your logic/arguments will always be defective.

This is a GREAT post because what it focuses on is:  how do you define that word/idea/concept?  And of course, that has been our fatal disconnect on every post that has raised an argument.

What you do too often, if not constantly, Scott can be represented by Venn Diagrams.  Draw the famous two overlapping circles.  A=humans, B=Computers.  What you do is note the overlap "C" and then make the error of saying A is exactly like B.  This is not true except in those respects that are in the overlap.  You fail to consider that which is B but that is not A.  I reference this above when I reflected the issues could be reviewed in "narrow verses broad scope."

Of course you will disagree.  Learn to actually parse.  When you say I said exactly that "that you religiously believe that no computer can ever attain sentience." and then you cut and paste as proof that I wouldn't allow computers to vote "because they aren't human." ===========that is not "exactly" the same statement.  The words aren't even the same.  So simple, so true--you don't get it.  A B and C circles in a row with A and B having overlap and B and C having overlap but A and C have no overlap at all.  You equate A with B and therefore make A equal to C as well.  The logic is powerful with only the fail that you equated the overlap of A with B.  A does not equal B and therefore is not the same as C.

So simple.  Pictures can be drawn of it.

Lets define AI.  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:  that which a computer can do.  Like play tictactoe, do OCR, or play chess or jeopard.  The Turing Test.  A test of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:  can the computer fool a human into not being able to tell he is talking to a computer.  Is the chicken intelligent or sentient?  Is the chess playing computer sentient?  Is the computer that can fool a human being in all respects sentient?  Well--as you posted, maybe it would have to be but what is absolutely known is that A=Humans, B=Computer and the yet to be demonstrated overlap is "fooling human beings."  I'm sure a very sharp picture has been formed in your mind.