[authorfly]

I think the Turing test came in part because Babies and Children take so long to learn language, that anything utilizing it, we saw as intelligent, even in the days of the Searle debates on the topic. Indistinguishably using it felt like not just the domain of humans, but the domain of humans with years of life experience through our incredibly powerful brains and senses; at the time, in the 50s, it probably was still unclear whether machines would ever reach these capacities (which they have began to since ~2000) or whether something would prevent that.

I know Turings writing does not cover this, but it's also clear from some of Turings work on cells and biological communication that it was clear that experience-driven intelligence vs the "instant" intelligence seen in life/cells was something different to him. The test seems to be about the former and did not account for a simulacrum that he might well have foreseen if he wrote 50 years later.

[ycombinete]

Seeing you use intelligence to describe the behavior of cells makes me realize that I don’t have a definition for intelligence. To the degree that I think I combine intelligence and consciousness into some kind of continuum.

How are you defining intelligence such that it encompasses what people do as well has what cells do?

[gavindean90]

Great question. Psychological research has identified like six areas of intelligence in humans so I’m sure the problem of how to define it simply won’t itself be simple.