  The Turing Test (TT) checks for human intelligence, rather than any putative
general intelligence. It involves repeated interaction requiring learning in
the form of adaption to the human conversation partner. It is a macro-level
post-hoc test in contrast to the definition of a Turing Machine (TM), which is
a prior micro-level definition. This raises the question of whether learning is
just another computational process, i.e. can be implemented as a TM. Here we
argue that learning or adaption is fundamentally different from computation,
though it does involve processes that can be seen as computations. To
illustrate this difference we compare (a) designing a TM and (b) learning a TM,
defining them for the purpose of the argument. We show that there is a
well-defined sequence of problems which are not effectively designable but are
learnable, in the form of the bounded halting problem. Some characteristics of
human intelligence are reviewed including it's: interactive nature, learning
abilities, imitative tendencies, linguistic ability and context-dependency. A
story that explains some of these is the Social Intelligence Hypothesis. If
this is broadly correct, this points to the necessity of a considerable period
of acculturation (social learning in context) if an artificial intelligence is
to pass the TT. Whilst it is always possible to 'compile' the results of
learning into a TM, this would not be a designed TM and would not be able to
continually adapt (pass future TTs). We conclude three things, namely that: a
purely "designed" TM will never pass the TT; that there is no such thing as a
general intelligence since it necessary involves learning; and that
learning/adaption and computation should be clearly distinguished.
