From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu Tue Jul 28 09:41:33 EDT 1992
Article 6468 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!qmw-dcs!abreu
>From: abreu@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Abreu)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining other intelligence out of existence
Message-ID: <1992Jul16.220153.18341@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 16 Jul 92 22:01:53 GMT
References: <971@engcon.marshall.ltv.com> <1992Jul16.154548.24206@sequent.com>
Sender: usenet@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Usenet News System)
Distribution: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London
Lines: 38
Nntp-Posting-Host: it106.dcs.qmw.ac.uk

In <1992Jul16.154548.24206@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) 
writes:

 > In article <971@engcon.marshall.ltv.com> ropella@engcon.UUCP (GEROPELLA) 
 > writes:
 > > 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?

Would it be reasonable to assume that if something is intelligent it
will be ABLE TO try to communicate like us?

After all, all you need to communicate is the ability to produce something
(sounds, images, frequencies, etc. etc.). If humanity discovered an alien
intelligence that communicated by reverberating water (!) wouldn't we at
least be able to try and communicate with them?

What on Earth does 'communication which is in a pattern like ours' mean?
Written English? Spoken English? Writing? Voice? Body language? Gestures?
Mimic? Punches(!)?

 > Are you suggesting that if something communicates in a pattern like
 > ours it is intelligent?

Well, I for one am! I'll do it once you answer the above question.

 > 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.

The old Chinese Room in disguise! Has it occurred to you you're
implying that there are easier ways of achieving intelligent
behaviour other than through intelligence? How does your argument hold
against the (unlikely, god forbid) possibility that the communication
is interactive?


