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!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!bfish Tue Jul 28 09:41:32 EDT 1992
Article 6465 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!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: <1992Jul16.154548.24206@sequent.com>
Date: 16 Jul 92 15:45:48 GMT
References: <971@engcon.marshall.ltv.com>
Sender: usenet@sequent.com (usenet )
Distribution: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Lines: 38
Nntp-Posting-Host: sequent.sequent.com

In article <971@engcon.marshall.ltv.com> ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA) writes:
 <referencing a previous post of mine>

>If you guys are going to try to analyze "intelligence," don't you think
>it might be a good idea to define it?  

Excellent point.  Did you read the subject line?  My argument is that tests
which argue they define "intelligence" (such as the Turing Test) don't do
an adequate job.  Since that point was made, we have addressed the issue
of whether or not *any* test can serve as an adequate definition of 
intelligence.  We have subsequently started to define what it means to be
intelligent.

>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.

Right!

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

I don't follow the intuitive leap that you have made here.  Are you 
suggesting that if something is intelligent, it will communicate in a pattern
which is like ours?  Are you suggesting that if something communicates in a
pattern like ours it is intelligent?  I have put forth the argument that
communication is not *necesarily* a reflection of intelligence.  It may well
be a reflection of *knowledge* which databases clearly show us can exist
without intelligence.

-- Brett

bfish@sequent.com

Standard Disclaimer


