From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-cv!ogicse!pnl-oracle!duke!d3g637 Thu Jul  9 16:20:35 EDT 1992
Article 6428 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-cv!ogicse!pnl-oracle!duke!d3g637
>From: d3g637@duke.oname (David P. Chassin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.022208.16034@oracle.pnl.gov>
Date: 8 Jul 92 02:22:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Jul8.022208.16034
References: <1992Jul8.092458.3088@otago.ac.nz>
Sender: news@oracle.pnl.gov
Reply-To: d3g637@duke.oname
Organization: Battelle/Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Lines: 37

>This is teh essence of the Turing Test.  It is in principle impossible to judge
>intelligence on the basis of the inward activity.  The outward evidence is the
>only available criterion.

Separating outward evidence from inward activity is of course the first step
in measuring intelligence.  It is easy to judge using outward evidence. My
interest is in refining the definition such that it begins to address the question
of how inward activity is recognized more directly.  I don't
want to say that because I can't get a handle on inward activity I'll settle for
watching outward signs of activity. Besides there is a real benefit to
having a theory of intelligence that can be used to develop and measure results.
Using such a theory for both the basis and the test might sound risky to some, 
but I'm a pragmatist at heart: if it produces a result, good or bad, I'll use it. 
Right now, I've got nothing.

My goal is not to create the illusion of intelligence.  I'm not saying that is 
what we are doing now, I'm only saying the Turing's test does not allow me to tell 
the difference between the illusion of intelligence (the outward sign) and the 
inward activity I feel is crucial to intelligent behaviour.  As a result I feel
compelled to search for a test that allows just such a differentiation.  Barry, may
be right: it may well be in principle impossible to judge intelligence on
the basis of inward activity.  I'm not convinced though; any thoughts on how
to prove or disprove it? 

What I liked about Bob Hansen's posting was that knowledge (passive) and 
intelligence (active) were brought together into something which 
begins to look at just what makes up the inward activity. 

	David P. Chassin
	Applied Physics Group
	Battelle
	Pacific Northwest Laboratories
		MS K5-16
		2400 Stevens Drive
		Richland, WA  99352
	(509)375-4369
	dp_chassin@pnl.gov


