From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!news.dell.com!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Wed Aug 12 16:52:31 EDT 1992
Article 6571 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!news.dell.com!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.173825.31310@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 6 Aug 92 17:38:25 GMT
References: <1992Aug4.152933.2523@sequent.com> <1992Aug4.171443.18771@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Aug6.153250.28517@sequent.com>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 32

In article <1992Aug6.153250.28517@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug4.171443.18771@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug4.152933.2523@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:

>>>                                I am willing to argue that communication
>>>is impossible without intelligence (not vice-versa).  If you care to
>>
>>  How much intelligence do you find in the communication between the
>>button outside my door and the doorbell hanging in my hallway?
>
>I find the same amount of intelligence as there is communication -- NONE.
>Are you making the case that because there is communication, there must be
>intelligence?  I certainly don't follow.

  Let me quote you:  "I am willing to argue that communication is
impossible without intelligence".  I gave you an example where
communication occurs, yet you admit above that there was no intelligence.
If you don't follow why this is a counter example to your statement,
then it is your own statement that you don't follow.

>>>                I make this distinction because communication implies a
>>>two-way exchange.
>>
>>  Most people would consider writing a letter, or sending a telegram,
>>or broadcasting on radio or television, to be communication, even when
>>there is no reply.
>
>Would they still consider it communication if noone received it?  My argument

  Of course not.  But if your definition of "two-way exchange" is such
that it includes the case where one person sends, and another receives,
you are using the term "two-way" in a rather uncommon sense.


