From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Tue Jan 28 12:17:58 EST 1992
Article 3163 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <1992Jan26.205913.19088@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <11920@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1992 20:59:13 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <11920@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <1992Jan25.230015.9475@mp.cs.niu.edu> Neil Rickert writes:
>]In article <11906@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:

>]>I don't have any problem believing that machine intelligence is
>]>possible, I just don't think you can say that some behavior is a sign
>]>of intelligence when you can completely explain the behavior without
>]>refering to intelligence.  That sort of belief is completely
>]>unmotivated.  (Or motivated by sloppy thinking.)
>]
>] I take it then that once somebody comes out with a full explanation of
>]human behavior, people will stop being intelligent!
>]
>

>As I have written at least twenty times in the
>last couple of months: the belief that humans are conscious is not
>based on behavior but on introspection.  Unless you have achieved a
>remarkable level of philosophical sophistication, you are not able to
>doubt that you yourself are conscious, aware, and _thinking_ in a way
>that is different from the inanimate.
>
 ...
>
>I have not refused to define any words.  In fact I have many times
>given, if not definitions, then descriptions of what I mean by words,
>and tried to get people either (1) to deny my descriptions or (2) to
>argue their points such that they are still valid using my
>descriptions.  So far only one person has had the courage to try the
>first, and no one has even come close to the second.
>
>					David Gudeman

I don't blame them.  Here it looks like you're defining "intelligent"
to be the same "conscious" or vice  versa.


