From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu Wed Aug 12 16:52:36 EDT 1992
Article 6578 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu
>From: abreu@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Abreu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug7.001849.22415@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Aug 92 00:18:49 GMT
References: <1992Aug4.152933.2523@sequent.com>
Sender: usenet@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Usenet News System)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London
Lines: 38
Nntp-Posting-Host: it127.dcs.qmw.ac.uk

In <1992Aug6.173825.31310@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) 
writes:

 > 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 can follow that. He doesn't follow his statement because he can't follow the 
reasoning of whoever made it so when he tries to follow the statement with the 
following arguments he can't follow, and obviously can't, therefore, follow 
your example as following as a counter example to his example, which by the 
way, he couldn't follow in the first place. It thus follows that he can't 
follow at all, let alone follow this.

Hamilton "Eeeeeeaaaaaasy" Abreu

PS. Aren't you guys using different definitions of communication? Let's not
forget that there's communication between all sorts of animals in our planet.


