From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Thu Jul  9 16:20:33 EDT 1992
Article 6424 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!uwm.edu!ogicse!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Summary: Striking out for a new definition
Keywords: Intelligence Definition
Message-ID: <1992Jul7.145418.3545@sequent.com>
Date: 7 Jul 92 14:54:18 GMT
References: <1992Jul1.044930.8970@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jul7.002937.27952@oracle.pnl.gov>
Sender: bfish@sequent.com
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Lines: 34
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com

In an effort to detail a better definition of intelligence I offer the 
following premise:

	Intelligence is distinct from knowledge.

Striving once more to clarify the apparently obvious, I think that this is a
necessary foundation for an accurate assessment of intelligence.  The two
may be co-dependent (I haven't got a resonable theory for what the relationship
between them may be, but that may follow logically from the definition).
My statement that they are distinct follows not from the argument that 
intelligence can be demonstrated without knowledge, but, rather, from a more
fundamental position that intelligence is the embodiment of an act and
knowledge is the embodiment of (presumed) facts.  

I think that intelligence is active and knowledge is passive.  One acquires
knowledge whereas, one develops intelligence.  Tied into this premise is the
belief that intelligence is not inate.  The potential to be intelligent may
be built into human (or computer chip for that matter), but, to be considered
intelligent, the potential must be expoited to some extant.  The extant
to which the potential is exploited is the extant to which something is
considered intelligent.  I fear that this evaluation of potential may break
down into an analysis of what it means to "fully expoit" potential which is
something I would prefer to avoid right now.  I understand that there are
inherent problems in evaluating potential and expoitation of potential and am
willing to abandon that position in favour of something more logical.  I hope
that this servers as a construct, however, on which we can begin to lay out
a more reasonable definition of intelligence (paying close attention to what
is "artificial intelligence").

Brett

bfish@sequent.com

The opinions expressed are my own blah, blah, blah...


