exactly the problem. the "turning test" is a facile demonstration...not a scientific "test" at all.
The question of how to measure consciousness is not *only* a scientific one. It is more a philosophical question. It has a scientific component to it which is why it is important that humans are prevented from seeing the subjects or hearing their "voice". It is a thought experiment detailing a scientific experiment to that could conclusively prove a machine was as intelligent as a human. Since human intelligence is best measured by human perception, the test uses human perception to make the evaluation in a scientific way.
We can have scientific tests about human perception. We can determine if people prefer coke or pepsi scientifically.
Do yourself a favor and ignore Turing completely when thinking about computing.
This is like saying we should ignore Einstein when thinking about physics. Besides, it is not about the man, but the insight that is gained by what Turing proposed. If you have gained no insight into computing from Turing, I would say you are either the most brilliant computer scientist that ever existed or that maybe you didn't understand his ideas.
I didn't say it would make it "intelligent"...it would do just as I said, give it legal rights. Just as giving Commander Data legal rights doesn't make it any more or less "human"...confering rights doesn't change the molecules of the thing.
How were bringing up legal rights relevant to the conversation on intelligence then?
Your analogy is ridiculous b/c it is irrational. If a being like Data was created, which mimics human thought on the most basic level (which, as TFA describes, we don't even have the theory to contexualize such a thing, let alone the ability to make it)...if we made it, there would be a ration question of what kind of rights it has.
My argument is not irrational. Yes it's true that rocks aren't intelligent, but that's why my argument has an "if" in it.
It's rational to ask if Data should have rights if he existed...it's not rational to ask if a rock should have rights. Your analogy fails.
Why is not rational? I am saying that what makes something worthy of human rights is whether it can pass some variation of the turing test. I am not saying that rocks can pass the test. I am saying that *if* by some bizarre circumstance a rock existed that could pass the turing test, then we would have no choice but to accept that it is intelligent and as worthy of rights as any other human.
The reason to give data rights when he asks for them is that this is an example of passing the turing test. We would not give rights to a computer program that simply prints "please give me rights" every 2 seconds. The fact that it is more convincing (to human perception) when data asks for rights is what makes the difference.
This is in contrast to alternatives like "human rights should only be given to carbon based life forms with human genomes, because these are the only things known to have of consciousness".
Both the "turing test" and "intelligence" are matters of ****HUMAN PERCEPTION****