From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose Thu Jul  9 16:20:16 EDT 1992
Article 6399 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jun30.213420.31395@spss.com>
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 21:34:20 GMT
References: <1992Jun30.193051.28317@sequent.com>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs5.spss.com
Lines: 22

In article <1992Jun30.193051.28317@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com 
(Brett Fishburne) writes:
>Is it fair to require that for something to be considered intelligent it 
>must mimic the _most_ intelligent thing we can think of?  Suppose we applied 
>that standard to running.  You can only be a runner if you can run as fast
>as a cheetah, oh, and, by the way, you must run on all fours.  I know this
>is a ludicrous example, but is it really much worse than what we are asking
>of artificial intelligence?

Well, who's "we"?  I doubt that many actual AI researchers are aiming to 
write a program that passes for a human being.  Indeed, they don't even feel
constrained to program using the approaches the human mind uses; cf. the
recent discussion on human vs. computer chess-playing strategies.

>Equally as intersting, why set this standard?  Could it possibly be that
>humans can not deal with the possibility that we are not unique in the
>universe?  Sounds like a certain stance attributed to most religions, not
>philosophical paradigms...

Neither generalization holds.  Most religions assert that we are indeed
not unique in the universe.  And the popularity of science fiction shows,
I think, that people enjoy thinking about nonhuman intelligences.


