Oh don't be ridiculous. The turning test isn't to prove whether or not something is human,
The Turing test posits that a person interacting with a computer through a terminal such that if the exchanges cannot be differentiated from those one would have with a human at the other end, the machine is effectively intelligent. So yes, it is using human intelligence as the standard. Sure, it could be used with, say, a chimpanzee but that wasn't how the original idea was formulated.
Whether you feel the Turing test is valid or not for determining if a machine is really "intelligent" it would be perfectly valid as applied to another organic being such as a dog, gorilla or dolphin.
Not without making very broad and unsound assumptions about what constitutes intelligence. Just because we may not be able to extract principles of behavior that we deem "intelligent", it does not follow that intelligence is not present. To believe that intelligence holds but one flavor, the human one, is ridiculous. Besides, who says that intelligence is the deciding factor in determining whether animals should be treated with respect?
Says you. I know enough about AI to know that your conclusion is hotly debated.
What does the level of debate have to do with the truth? Flat earth/spherical earth was perhaps hotly debated at one time as well. That did not alter the truth even a whit.
That's nice. But there is nothing in the definition of intelligence that requires life.
From the John Uoft Dictionary of 1785:
INTE'LLIGENCE.
1. Commerce of information ; notice; mutual
communication...
Not what we're looking for.
2. Commerce of acquaintance; terms on
which men live one with another.
Nor that.
3. Spirit; unbodied mind.
4. Understanding.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Definition 3 fits best our context and I would say that life is so very heavily implied.
My AI professor would call you a "carbon chauvinist".
I've heard the term before. Singularly unconvincing. To date, carbon is the only known basis for life. When someone discovers non-carbon based life, I will change my views. Until then it is prudent to work within that which we know to be true insofar as law and policy is concerned. Otherwise, as is with insanity, the sky's the limit and anything goes. I do not think that is a sound basis for living amongst each other.
Before we go any further, let me b clear that there is nothing strident in my tone. This medium of communication can sometimes impart the perception of timbre that is not there. Just reminding you that I'm not trying to beat on you or be otherwise disrespectful. OK?
But again that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I was making. We're not talking about whether or not machines have the level of intelligence needed to qualify for life.
I think you may have this reversed. If anything, I would consider life as the prerequisite for intelligence.
We're talking about animals! And I proposed a Turing test using animals instead of computers.
OK, but what of it? To assume all intelligence must be readily recognizable by human probing seems too self-serving in its presumptuousness. If we assume animal intelligence is of equal "value" to that of humans (whatever that would really mean), then it would follow that we are currently unable discern it as such. We really have no basis for making such pronouncements of the nature of animal minds.
By contrast we are continually given examples of animals doing interesting things, but nowhere near what humans do, as proof of "animal intelligence".
Once again this presumes that animal intelligence must by necessity "make sense" to humans in terms of nature and degree. This is a dangerously preposterous assumption - one made most transparently for the sake of mere convenience - to excuse the arbitrary treatment of such "inferior" creatures. This smells awfully dishonest to me and possibly even evil, depending on degree.
Sticking with "what we know", we know animals are alive, they seek to remain that way, they avoid injury and pain. We know precious little of the innermost nature of their intelligence, not that that has anything to do with predicating humane treatment. But if it did, so much more the reason to err of the side of respect.
Believe what you will, of course. I see -
discern - the life in other beings, human and otherwise. They each have different qualities, even between individuals. My assumptions are made in favor of life and what I feel is the propriety of respecting it. Others feel differently.
And so who's the arbiter of "truth"? You? Don't make me laugh! 
, not to mention making a trophy out of something you killed to eat is a possibility where as the food factor outweighs the pleasure of bloodlust factor.
