From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Mon Aug 24 15:40:49 EDT 1992
Article 6618 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Turing Test Myths
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.045834.23492@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Aug13.024527.2079@news.media.mit.edu> <BILL.92Aug13130725@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Aug13.230220.23021@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:58:34 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <1992Aug13.230220.23021@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>
>Well, yes.  It seems to me that we use the word "intelligence" in
>regard to mental performances that we admire.

  As long as we view intelligence this way, our investigation of
intelligence will be about as scientific as if we used ouija boards or
tarot cards.  Physics started to make strides only after Galileo questioned
common assumptions.  Astronomy took of after Copernicus questioned the
obvious beliefs.  Likewise chemistry, biology, and probably many other
fields.

>  ....                                         -- and this means that
>the "definition" is relative to someone's values and goals.

 Right.  And this means that there is no objectivity to the study of
intelligence.  It will not deserve being called a science until these
subjective views are rejected.

>                                                             Also, if
>I know a lot about how you solved a problem, then I regard it as more
>a "skill" than as an intelligent performance.  

 And perhaps when we know how intelligence works, we will decide that
it too is only a skill and not an intelligent performance. :-(  I think
this is what some people are afraid of, and this is why they will refuse
to question conventional subjective views.

>                                       This leads people to worry
>about whether rocks or plants are intelligent, and similar silly
>things.

 I don't really think anybody is particularly worried about whether
rocks or plants are intelligent.  These questions are introduced only
as a way of questioning the conventional views of intelligence, or as
a way of ridiculing those who do try to break from the conventional.

>AS for philosophy, I wish I could agree with Skaggs but, for the past
>century, it seems to me, the methods of philosophy have lagged too far
>behind those of psychology and (more recently) of AI to be taken
>seriously.  Except for Dennett and maybe a couple of other
>professionals.

  The difference with Dennett is that he does dare to question commonly
held assumptions.  He is trying to bring the subject closer to being a
science.



