From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu Mon Aug 24 15:40:51 EDT 1992
Article 6620 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu
>From: abreu@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Abreu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Turing Test Myths
Message-ID: <1992Aug14.102643.574@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:26:43 GMT
References: <BILL.92Aug12122254@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> 
	<1992Aug13.024527.2079@news.media.mit.edu> 
	<BILL.92Aug13130725@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> 
	<1992Aug13.230220.23021@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: usenet@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Usenet News System)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: it127.dcs.qmw.ac.uk

In <BILL.92Aug13201500@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill 
Skaggs) writes:

 > minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky, who ought to get some new
 > News-posting software) writes:
 [...]

 >    > It seems to me that we use the word "intelligence" in regard to
 >    > mental performances that we admire.

 > This is the first definition I've seen that I can't easily refute (and
 > I'll admit that it didn't occur to me).  Very elegant.  But it
 > naturally leads to the next question: What kind of mental performances
 > do we admire?  (And related questions, such as, do different cultures
 > tend to admire different kinds of mental performances?)

I like this. Too general though, far too much.

Variations occur between cultures and also between individuals.
In general, we tend to admire that which we cannot do (or which
we cannot do as "easily" as the next guy). Different people have
different abilities, so in a way or another we'll all admire
different things.
 
Hamilton Abreu


