From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!att!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jul 28 09:41:24 EDT 1992
Article 6452 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!att!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jul15.030619.8736@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 15 Jul 92 03:06:19 GMT
References: <BILL.92Jul14102805@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Jul14.174442.16152@mp.cs.niu.edu> <BILL.92Jul14150153@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 44

In article <BILL.92Jul14150153@cortex.nsma.arizona.edu> bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>   For that
>   matter, how certain are we that human intelligence has much to do with
>   possessing goals?  
>
>I don't see how purposeless behavior could ever be viewed as
>intelligent.

  Saying that an action is not due to possessing goals is hardly the
same as saying it is purposeless.  Goals and purposes are not the
same.  The roof on my house has a purpose, but it has no goals.  Roughly
speaking, a goal is something you must assign to yourself, while a
purpose can be an interpretation given by someone else.

  One problem with a goal dependent definition is that it requires a
considerably amount of intelligence to even be able to formulate a
goal.  By requiring the possession of a goal, you are denying any
intelligence to creatures too primitive to be able to formulate
goals.

>              Can you give a concrete example of an intelligent action
>that does not help to achieve some goal?

 Whether an action achieves some goal is not important.  It is only
significant if the action was the result of the possession of that
goal.  But if the goal is merely an ex post facto explanation of the
action, then the goal may have played no actual role in the intelligent
action.

>   Couldn't the goals often be no more than a
>   rationalization?
>
>I agree with you that the reasons people give for their actions often
>have little to do with the actual causes of those actions; but if the
>actions don't have any purpose, then they aren't intelligent, as far
>as I can see.

  Actions do have purposes.  Even the purpose of surviving for a few
more minutes is a purpose.  But that is hardly a goal.  The purpose may
indeed be relevant for intelligence, but since we tend to take such
purposes for granted, it is not obvious that this tells you anything
new.


