From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!sagi.wistar.upenn.edu Tue Jul 28 09:41:44 EDT 1992
Article 6486 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining intelligence
Message-ID: <83772@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 19 Jul 92 22:47:02 GMT
References: <16JUL199217235568@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 8
Nntp-Posting-Host: sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: jones@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jones)

In article <16JUL199217235568@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jones@amarna (Jones) writes:
>A recent poster (I have lost the pointer) says that the way to achieve
>A.I. is to *define* "intelligence."  This is a classic mistake.

Yes.  You'll find "intelligent" defined in some dictionaries to include
having computerized functions wired-in, as in "intelligent terminal".
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)


