Turing the Gospel, ESP

[Ann Oy]

rj wrote:

> . . . . . .  . I simply asked whether the term
>"extra-sensory" might be inappropriate, that perhaps ESP (if it should
>exist) would be better classified as a sensory faculty: another sense,
>not something "outside" the senses. I guess it's a semantic issue
>residing in the word "extra", which can mean both another and
>extraneous. Another sense, or just non-sense?
 . . .

Sure, ESP is inappropriate or at least inexact as is 'AI' itself. Yet we
all know what is meant by these and without actually having anything that
we wish to call ESP or AI, the terms seem to do just fine. The 'Turing
Test' has the same problem. If your name is 'Edgecrusher' and you are an AI
being which has perhaps detached itself from any particular node and now
inhabit the network itself, pursuing your own goals, you may not wish to
fail the Turing Test if caught by the folks from the Turing Registry.
It is extremely unfortunate that people cannot leave mathematical terms
such as Chaos or Complexity alone. These terms have zero non-mathematical
meaning.