From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jul 28 09:41:49 EDT 1992
Article 6495 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:13:38 GMT
References: <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 66

In article <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> justin.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu writes:
>
>        This thread has been beating at this subject for quite some time 
>now, and I believe a reassessment of the progress that has been made here 
>(or that has not been made, as the case may be) would be useful to 
>provide redirection for the discussion.
>        I'm not ambitious enough to undertake this, but I wonder if we 
>can agree on some basics?  Criticism on these points is welcome.
>
>        I. Intelligence requires a memory storage/retrieval system.

  Strongly disagree.

  Certainly humans are capable of learning, and learning implies some
kind of memory.  But I deny that it is a "storage/retrieval" system.
Indeed it is my opinion that the often held belief that we have a
storage/retrieval system is a major stumbling block in understanding
human cognition.

>        II. Intelligence is about problem-solving.

  Strongly disagree.

  Intelligence is all about survival.  For survival, response to stimulus
is the important feature.  Problem solving certainly helps by greatly
broadening the variety of possible responses.  But I would prefer to
say that problem solving ability is a side effect of intelligence, rather
than a central component.

>        III. Intelligence requires drives.

  Of course, there is the genetically implanged drive for survival.
But if you intended some conscious drive, I must strongly disagree.
That has it backwards.  Intelligence is needed to produce the type of
conscious awareness necessary as a prerequisite for having such drives.

>        IV. Intelligence requires creativity.

  Again, I must disagree.  Once again, creativity is an effect of
intelligence, but I very much doubt that it is a prerequisite.  Indeed,
it is much more likely that intelligence is a prerequisite for creativity.

>        V. Intelligence is a function of speed.  It's likely we all agree 
>on this point.

  Can't agree here either.  Speed certainly has utility.  But I don't
believe it is central.  Certainly speed is an important part of
intelligence for an animal involved in intense predator/prey relations.
But if a creature adopts an ecological niche where there are no predators,
it might be able to adopt a quite sedate life style and still be very
intelligent.

>        VI. Certain types of intelligence require communication.

  Finally, something I can agree with - sort of.

>                                                                  This is 
>where the Turing Test comes in,

  Just a moment there.  The communication you are thinking of in the
Turing test is needed to demonstrate the intelligence to others.  It is
not itself an integral part of the intelligence.

  That being said, the term "communication" is so general, and your
equivocation "certain types of" is so broad, that I have to agree with
statement VI.


