From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!goanna!minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!rcsjp Tue Jul 28 09:42:01 EDT 1992
Article 6516 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!goanna!minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!rcsjp
>From: rcsjp@cgl.rmit.oz.au (Jason Pouflis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Defining Intelligence
Message-ID: <rcsjp.712226333@godzilla>
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:38:53 GMT
References: <2ZmcoB1w164w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> <1992Jul23.151338.28804@mp.cs.niu.edu> <14n85cINN9vc@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu> <1992Jul23.223809.11316@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: usenet@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Njuiz noveles nova newes)
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Lines: 38

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>  If man was created by a god in an act of creation, then perhaps it is
>true that we were given intelligence to solve problems.  But I happen
>to believe in evolution.  The driving force of evolution is survival,
>particularly survival of the species.  Simple things that evolved may
>have done so out of random luck.  But as the complexity increases, the
>probabilities of random luck diminish.  Anything as complex as intelligence
>could only have evolved because it aided survival.  The fact that it
>happens to aid in solving problems is an incidental side effect, and
>merely reflects that the ability to solve certain problems also has a
>relation to survival.
>  --------------


As I Understand It, 
	By being able to transfer survival skills (fluid or static)
to the next generation, chances of survival increased.
	If we assume humans to be intelligent, then communication 
(the capacity for language) or learning is the sign of intelligence.
	When we personally estimate someones intelligence,
we are trying to find out how quickly they can learn, their capacity
for knowledge, how smart they are. We judge this based on
their vocabulary, personality, and the attention they pay us.

	So,
	I wonder if the question of intelligence has relevance to computers.

	Maybe we should try again, when we feel empathy for a computer.

However, I'm only talking about intelligence in the human aspect.
what intelligence MEANS to someone who is trying to measure it.

Otherwise your talking about how well some entity can acheive it's goals,
a matter dealt with in game theory.

IMHO,
Jason Pouflis


