Hacker News Reader

That's one answer. Another is that you would be within your rights to draw the inference that the system you are observing is conscious (which is slightly different, and deeply unsatisfying to many).

View on HN

Can you explain the difference?

For Turing, the criteria for intelligence was a matter of observers (if it walks like a duck . . .); what is "actually happening" inside is irrelevant. Searle's objection was that what is happening "inside" is surely not irrelevant. So while some answered that in the Chinese Room argument the "whole system is conscious," others argued that Turing's point still stands. Someone observing the system would have to conclude that the system was intelligent, regardless of what was happening inside.

The two answers are roughly on the same side of the argument, but subtly different in important ways.

Ok thanks. Yeah I think that Turing came up with the best solution for detecting intelligence. If it passes that test then either the system is truly intelligent or a “zombie” which only appears intelligent. As mentioned in some other replies on this post, I think “zombies” are something created by philosophers but do not exist in real life. So i think the observation of intelligence is equivalent to actual intelligence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com