From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman Tue Jan 28 12:18:15 EST 1992
Article 3182 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <11957@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 92 20:56:15 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 30

In article  <1992Jan27.175154.7158@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
]David Gudeman writes:
]
]> If a computer aquired intelligence "accidentally" (as in many
]> science fiction stories) and no one could account for the machine's
]> actions in terms of its construction and programming, I would at least
]> consider this evidence for the machine's understanding.  If the
]> machine further started talking about having feelings, preferences,
]> self-awareness, etc, then (assuming I didn't suspect cheating) I would
]> be pretty much convinced.
]
]Now, a century later, common sense has flip-flopped on this issue; it
]now seems implausible that intelligence could be the result of design,
]although it could very well arise by accident.

What seems implausible is that intelligence could be the result of
design when the designers have no idea how to even detect intelligence
in others, much less create it.


And I did not say that I think intelligence could very well arise by
accident.  Frankly, I find the idea preposterous.  Not logically
impossible, but so improbable that it doesn't bear considering except
under an enormous amount of evidence.  All I said is that if the
evidence accumulated, I would be willing to believe it.  Frankly, I
would have a strong prefence for the cheating theory.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


