From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!engcon!ropella Tue Jul 28 09:41:30 EDT 1992
Article 6462 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!engcon!ropella
>From: ropella@engcon.marshall.ltv.com (GEROPELLA)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <971@engcon.marshall.ltv.com>
Date: 16 Jul 92 13:32:03 GMT
Reply-To: ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA)
Distribution: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: LTV MEG, Dallas, TX
Lines: 43

Article 6986 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: engcon!uunet!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish
>From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jul8.170459.23090@sequent.com>
Date: 8 Jul 92 17:04:59 GMT
References: <4eKPF7_00WAL01Wvsr@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Jul7.214542.13861@oracle.pnl.gov>
Sender: bfish@sequent.com
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Lines: 56
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com


If you guys are going to try to analyze "intelligence," don't you think
it might be a good idea to define it?  As I understand it, artificial
intelligence is intended to be just that, artificial.  What this means
(to me, of course) is that the discipline is not intended to create,
measure, or analyze "intelligence."  It is intended to EMULATE that
characteristic of ourselves that indicates the ability to carry out
and/or formulate abstracted processes.  (abstracted from the physical
world)  The word emulate is more appropriate than mimick, I think,
because it implies that the machine does not necessarily have to do
anything that has or hasn't been done before.  But, it must do things
that make us think it is similar to us.  (I suppose the word "simulation"
should come to mind about now.)

Anyway, my point is that you are using the concept of the "Turing Test"
to judge something that may not exist anywhere, even in humans.  Untill
there is a definition of intelligence and someone proves that a thing
satisfying that definition exists, then there is absolutely no use
in a hypothetical machine that tests for existence.

Now, I suppose you could *suppose* intelligence exists; but, then we
would need a real....or existent test that we could establish the
supposition (or deny the supposition) with.

Until then, I suggest you stick with artificial (emulatable, simulatable,
and analyzable) intelligence.  (Which would be communication patterned
after ours.)

glen


